Loading...
1998-07-07 Special and Regular CC Minutes167 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 7, 1998- -6:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-352) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator: Personnel Director; Employee Organizations: Unrepresented Employees and Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA). (98-353) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of Cases: One. (98-354) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of Cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, Council received a briefing from the Personnel Director; and regarding the two Anticipated Litigation cases, the City Council gave instructions to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m. Re pectfully submitted Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JULY 7, 1998 - - 7;30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Council Meeting at 7:50 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend James Carter, Central Baptist Church. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr Lucas, and Mayor Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. ki)4 9 44. (98-355) Mayor Appezzato announced adoption of the Out-of-Town Travel Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99 [paragraph no. 98-358] would be held over and Resolution Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 1998-99 [paragraph no. 98-377] would be heard first on the Regular Agenda. 'Z. 444 04. 44.11 11111 • (98-356) Presentation by Chair of the Housing Commission. Housing Commission Chair, Arthur Kurrasch, gave a presentation on current Commission activities. 4 4.D4Z Mayor Appezzato announced that the following Consent Calendar items had been withdrawn for discussion: Contract with Buestad Construction, Inc., Introduction of Ordinance pertaining to Administrative Citations, Introduction of Ordinance pertaining to Parking Prohibitions and Introduction of Ordinance pertaining to Sale of 10.28 Acre Parcel located within the Harbor Bay Isle Business Park. Councilmember Kerr moved acceptance of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Lucas stated that she did not attend the previous Council meeting and would abstain from voting on the Minutes [paragraph no. 98-357]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 I a 7 On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number] (*98-357) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting held on June 16, 1998, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on June 16, 1998. Approved. [Abstentions: Councilmember Lucas - 1.] (98-358) Recommendation to adopt Out-of-Town Travel Budget for Fiscal Year 1998-99. Held over. Mayor Appezzato noted that the City Manager withdrew the item from the Agenda. (*98-359) Recommendation to accept Annual Submittal of the City of Alameda's Investment Policy. Accepted. (*98-360) Recommendation to accept the Seventh Annual Report on Implementation of the Housing Element. Accepted. (98-361) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $509,000 to Buestad Construction, Inc. for Building 1 Upgrades, and authorize allocation of additional Funds for Building 1 Improvements. Councilmember Kerr stated that she had a question on the absence of an elevator because of the absence of funding, and inquired whether the $119,000 from the Navy was permanently lost. The City Manager responded the Navy will not provide, at this time, any funding other than the $31,000 identified for the Project. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*98-362) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $199,100 to St. Francis Electric for signalization of Park Street and Blanding Avenue, No. P.W. 11-97-21. Accepted. (*98-363) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Calling for Bids for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter and Driveway for FY 1998-99, No. P.W. 05- 98-11. Accepted. (*98-364) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Calling for Bids for Upgrades to Building 90, Alameda Point, No. P.W. 05-98-13. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 (*98-365) Recommendation to accept Improvements and release Bonds for Tracts 6111, 6147 and 6198. Accepted. (*98-366) Resolution No. 13012, "Calling for a General Municipal Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election, to be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 3, 1998." Adopted. (*98-367) Resolution No. 13013, "Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the County Clerk/Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of the Consolidated General Municipal Election on Tuesday, November 3, 1998." Adopted. (*98-368) Resolution No. 13014, "Establishing Guidelines for Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business Travel." Adopted. (98-369) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 1-7 (Administrative Citations) to Chapter I (General). Introduced. Councilmember Kerr stated the Ordinance is a conversion to make issuing citations for certain violations of the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) more efficient, instead of serving Court notices; directed staff to pursue and explore ways to apply said regulations to noise ordinances if possible. Councilmember Kerr further stated AMC Sec. 10.10 gives a table with decibel levels for specific periods of time; the problem with measuring noise is that Planning is the only department with a noise meter; said department is closed on weekends and at night; the City should explore obtaining a meter for the Police Department; also, AMC Sec. 4.10.5 established 50 foot rule for portable radios, car radios, etc.; if a radio can be heard within 50 feet, it is too loud; the City should explore a 100 foot rule, or a suitable distance, for non- moving sources of noise. The City Manager stated staff will follow up with the issues identified by Councilmember Kerr. Councilmember Kerr moved introduction of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-370) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 4-25.2 (Prohibitions; Exceptions) of Section 4-25 (Parking Prohibited in Front Yards and Side Yards of Residentially Zoned Property) of Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety) and Adding New Article IV (Regulations Concerning Private Property). Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 18B Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated that he was not concerned about the City keeping someone from parking their own vehicle on their own property as an unconstitutional restriction of somebody's right; it is a taking of property, because the City is restricting someone's right to use their property as they see fit; if he had wanted restrictions on parking vehicles on his property, he would have moved to Bay Farm [Island] and signed a CC&R for living in a condo or townhouse; he bought a single-family dwelling so he would not be restricted in such ways, however, he is not concerned about that; he is concerned about how the proposal restricts the First Amendment rights of citizens; Council is trying to legislate taste and is out of order; the proposed ordinance is the height of economic arrogance, and the Police will probably have selected enforcement. Councilmember Lucas moved introduction of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato stated most everyone supports residential neighborhoods and the quality of life in Alameda, and that he will support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*98-371) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 8-12 (Rules of Procedure Governing the Contest of Parking Citations and Equipment Violations) to Chapter XIII (Traffic and Motor Vehicles). Introduced. (98-372) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Sale of 10.28 Acre Parcel, APN 074-1339-2-1, Located Within the Harbor Bay Isle Business Park, to Harbor Bay Isle Associates. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he supports sale of the property; even without breaking even, he urges Council to get out of the real estate business, accept the reasonable offer from Harbor Bay Isle Associates, and be done with the 10 acres. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated when government intervened and bailed out Ron Cowan [developer], et. al.., it over reached its purpose and what the Founding Fathers envisioned; it should be placed into law that the City not be allowed to do this [type of] thing again without a majority vote of the people. Councilmember Kerr stated that the selected buyer is willing to make a deposit of $50,000 with a possible addition of $10,000; the other prospective buyer is willing to make a deposit of $100,000; those deposits are non-refundable in case the buyer backs out, however there are assessments: a semi-annual assessment of $83,000 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 plus other assessments that add up to about $100,000; deposit should be sufficient to cover all assessments that come due during the period, in case the buyer backs out; and the City should not lose money by any 90-day extension to any given buyer. Mr. Rudloff, Public Works Department, stated Councilmember Kerr's evaluation was correct; the buyer had indicated they would pay for assessments accrued during escrow; however, if the buyer backed out, they would not [pay assessments]. Mr. Rudloff further stated staff could negotiate further, although buyers had indicated offers were final. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the City would be picking up $200,000 in soft costs from the transaction and there were no real estate costs; that he would prefer to move forward on the matter; and moved [introduction of the ordinance] authorization for the negotiators to enter into a Sales Agreement with Harbor Bay Isle. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussikdn, Councilmember Daysog stated it was good to put this chapter of Alameda behind and focus on further development of Harbor Bay. Mayor Appezzato stated the City took a chance six months ago to generate more than $200,000 in revenue; he complimented Councilmembers Lucas and Daysog for taking the lead; stated that the City is not in the real estate business; the City owes it to the citizens to attempt to acquire the most for said property; it is valuable; and that he will support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*98-373) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,047,184.19. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Mayor Appezzato announced that the Resolution Approving the Budget would be heard first. [paragraph no. 98-377] (98-374) Public Hearing to consider the call for review by Mayor Appezzato of the Planning Board's approval of an Interim Use Permit (UP-97-43), to allow an "Antiques Fair" with sales by vendors of furniture, collectible goods, household goods, automobile parts, food and other items in up to 1,000 booths on 34 acres of Paved Area, for up to 12,000 visitors for one event per month, and major Design Review approval (DR-98-18) for mobile/modular office between Building 19 and Building 11 on Monarch Avenue and storage in Building 405, Alameda Point. Approximately 5,000 to 7,000 parking spaces would be available. The site is zoned M-2/G (General Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Industrial-Manufacturing/Special Government Combining District). The General Plan designation is Federal Facilities. Applicant: Antiques by the Bay, and Resolution No 13015, "Upholding the Planning Board's Decision and Approving Interim Use Permit, UP-97-43, to Allow an "Antiques Fair" with Sales by Vendors in Up to 1,000 Booths on 34 Acres of Paved Area, for Up to 12,000 Visitors for One Event Per Month; and Major Design Review DR-97-18 Approval for Mobile/Modular Offices Between Building 19 and Building 11 on Monarch Avenue and Storage in Building 405, Alameda Point; Antiques by the Bay/Allen and Sandra Michaan, Jerry and Elizabeth Goldman." Adopted. Allen Michaan, Applicant, Antiques by the Bay (ABB), stated that he will speak for all ABB partners; during past year, the [Antiques Fair] project has changed substantially from what partners initially envisioned; changes were due in part to the need to modify the event to fit the requirements and restrictions of the chosen site on the Naval Air Station [Alameda Point], ABB is not associated with the Rose Bowl event in Southern California, however, [Rose Bowl] 20-year event inspired vision; the City of Pasadena received over $900,000 last year as facility rental income for Rose Bowl's once a month event; in addition, Pasadena received substantial sales tax revenues for sales at the Rose Bowl event; [ABB] partners have worked well with City of Alameda Planning Department staff, ABB staff and the Planning Board at two [Planning Board] Public Hearings to perfect a proposal to mitigate standing issues which have been identified; since Planning Board approval was granted, ABB has contacted or met with adjoining tenants who expressed concerns regarding the event, ABB's primary goal was to satisfy the need of Manex Entertainment; after satisfying security concerns, Manex's main objection was the placement of a building on the tarmac; ABB has agreed not to place any modular building on the tarmac, but instead will use a portable ticket booth and portable office which will be stored at building 405 between events; ABB hereby withdraws the request for the major design review to place a structure on the tarmac. Mr. Michaan further stated sellers booths would be set up between 5 a.m and 7 a.m.; all traffic will enter Alameda Point via the Atlantic Avenue gate, no stacking or lining up of vehicles will be allowed outside the Atlantic Avenue gate; ABB will not allow trucks over 25 feet in length on the selling field; out of town vendors will patronize local motels or bed and breakfast establishments in Alameda; vendors will not be allowed to sleep in vehicles at any site inside or outside ABB's event; by 7 a.m., the site will be ready for the public; buyers will be directed by ABB's parking attendants to park in rows; the buying public will proceed to ticket booths and entry gate; ABB has donated the first booth to allow the Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with Alameda business associations, the opportunity to distribute literature, advertisements, and discount coupons for any Alameda business which desires to promote itself at the ABB event; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Alameda realtors can participate in said booth to promote open houses and real estate buying opportunities to attendees; Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) is also welcome to have an informational brochure [at said booth]. Mr. Michaan stated attendees will encounter up to 475 vendors displaying a wide array of fine antiques and collectibles; ABB will prohibit any new merchandise from being sold and will create an independent panel made up of antiques dealers to jury the merchandise to ensure the highest quality; 25 vendors will sell food and refreshments; food vendors will be grouped together and picnic tables will be provided for dining; people who attend antique fairs range from professional dealers and antique store owners to impassioned collectors, families and single people looking to furnish their homes and apartments; children are also avid collectors; fair attendees will have disposable income and are looking for merchandise to purchase, otherwise they would not be willing to pay admission to gain access to the selling field; a testimony to the growing popularity of collecting is the antiques road show series on PBS which has received the highest ratings ever realized for any series on PBS; people who watch said show will want to attend ABB's event; buyers and sellers will bring many benefits to the City of Alameda; ABB will pay ARRA a projected $100,000 per year for event one day per month with 500 vendor booths; ABB will use a piece of open land which cannot be redeveloped until some unknown, future date when the toxic sludge at the bottom of the Seaplane Lagoon is removed; proposal is an interim use and does not prevent future development of said site as anticipated in the long range plan for Alameda Point; the Antiques Fair is an outdoor event and does not occupy structures which could be used for other purposes; ABB will be paying market rents for Building 405 in addition to an agreed percentage of the Antiques Fair gross receipts; no alteration is proposed to historic structures; additional revenues for Alameda will be raised from the collection of sales taxes; only reputable dealers will be licensed to sell at this event; all vendors, other than those selling once per year as allowed by law, will be required to hold a valid State Board of Equalization permit and must show proof of holding said permit in order to be sellers; the State regularly sends, inspectors to these types of events to check on dealers and assure compliance with the law; revenues from portion of sales tax are estimated to be almost $100,000 per year; ABB is not requesting the City of Alameda or ARRA to make any investment in this project, the burden of risk is entirely on ABB; public access will be created to the shoreline at Alameda Point which for decades has been off-limits to public; the McAteer /Petris Act_, requires that public access be guaranteed for any development that is within a 100 foot band adjacent to all shoreline property; legally, the public can no longer be eliminated from Alameda Point; ABB's proposed interim use will create: an event for the public to enjoy on this property, heightened interest and awareness for leasing possibilities at Alameda Point, and increased attendance at the Hornet on event days; there will be a significant spillover of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 business to Alameda merchants, especially those on the West End; ABB has received endorsement from West Alameda Business Association and Park Street Business Association. Mr. Michaan summarized the binding mitigations conditioned by the use permit approved by the Planning Board which will be in effect for the life of ABB's event; stated if a pattern of violations occurs, the Planning Director has the option of taking action including scheduling a Public Hearing for revocation of the Use Permit; a six month review and reassessment of the event was adopted by the Planning Board to address any concerns or lingering issues; the City will have the option to consider revoking the Conditional Use Permit at that time [six month review], the Planning Board and staff have made every effort to address any and all lingering concerns regarding ABB's application; if ABB fails to comply [with conditions], the City can move expeditiously and within its rights to terminate the permit; [Applicants] are asking Council to allow the event to proceed on this trial basis; urged Council to uphold the Planning Board's decision. Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Michaan has started movie theaters and inquired whether he [Mr. Michaan] received loans from banks for starting the theaters, to which Mr. Michaan stated at times he borrowed money from banks. Councilmember Daysog further inquired whether lenders required any feasibility studies, to which Mr. Michaan responded generally not, banks usually ask for personal guarantees or take deeds of trust out on properties owned or operated. Councilmember Daysog inquired how many antique shows Mr. Michaan has operated, to which Mr. Michaan responded that the proposed Fair would be his first antiques promotional show, however, his partners, Jerry and Betsy Goldman, produced the San Anselmo Street Fair for two years; letters have been submitted from San Anselmo City Officials and business people attesting to the Goldman's fine work in producing this antique street fair. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the size and frequency of the [San Anselmo] Street Fair, Mr. Michaan stated the event was approximately 175 booths; logistically, the event was much harder to put together because it was in the middle of City streets; and the event was once a year. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the event in San Anselmo is closed now, to which Mr. Michaan responded event still goes on, however, when ABB was formed about one year ago, the Goldman's closed their shop, moved to Alameda and have been working on producing the Antique Fair [in Alameda]. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding the number of events which occur on an monthly basis, Mr. Michaan cited example Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 of weekly flee markets: one on Alemany Boulevard [S.F.] and one at the Oakland Coliseum; stated Jack London is a monthly antique fair held on the first Saturday every month; they anticipate ABB's event will bolster Jack London because it will bring more antique buyers and vendors into the area Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. Michaan had a study to prove [Jack London's business would increase], Mr. Michaan stated that he has studies on the antiques market in the Bay Area; Alameda Point offers a unique opportunity. Councilmember Daysog stated the Planning Board made a stipulation to not allow more than 10% household goods, i.e. non-antique,-non- collectible goods; and inquired why not do away with 10%. Mr. Michaan stated Council can eliminate 10% of household goods, however, he believes Council will receive complaints from local residents who would like to sell items [at the event]. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding whether the City's 20% of gross revenues would be $100,000 annually from one event per month at maximum production, Mr. Michaan stated with 500 booths ABB believes they can deliver $100,000; $5,000 [per event] is a minimum guarantee. Mayor Appezzato further inquired whether it would be worth the City to gain $100,000 per year and maybe lose $1 Million if ABB is not compatible with other users; to which Mr. Michaan stated if that was the case, ARRA would not be supporting ABB; perhaps Ed Levine [ARRA Facilities Manager] could address said issue. * * * Lee Harris, Planning Board President, gave an overview of the Planning Board's actions; stated there are two issues: is type of event desirable, and are large events desirable; whether large events are desired is a policy issue; the Planning Board made sure the promoter will pay for all monitoring costs; there is no cost to the City for mitigation measures; at the time of the six month review, if the City Council is not satisfied with the Planning Board's determination, the Council could call for review again. Councilmember Kerr stated that she understood the Planning Board discussed the six month review process; some Board members wanted to be able to shut down without cause, however, the majority wanted the City to make a finding and have justification not to allow the Fair to continue. Mr. Harris responded everyone [on the Planning Board] was in favor of having the Fair come up for review; the procedural discussion was whether to issue a permit for an extended period of time and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 have a six month review, at which time if detriment found, could close Fair down; other option two members were in support of, but the Board did not adopt, was to issue a six month use permit which means even if the City does nothing, the Fair would close down automatically; the Planning Board recommendation gives the City broad discretion to close down [Fair] in six months. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding a no cause eviction at six months, Mr. Harris stated that would work with a six month use permit only. Mayor Appezzato stated all six [Planning Board] members were in favor of the Fair; however, how the Board dealt with six month review created the dissention. * * * William Dietrich, DKS Associates Traffic Engineer, stated that he was available to answer questions. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding why the impacts at the intersections at Central Avenue and 4th Street, and Central Avenue and 5th Street were not included in the traffic study, Mr. Dietrich stated most traffic of proposed Antique Fair will be regional traffic coming into Alameda off the freeway; the Posey Tube is estimated as the location where traffic volumes will be the heaviest; traffic will come in on Webster to Atlantic and into the Fair site; 10% of traffic is envisioned as being Alameda oriented; on Sunday, traffic going into Alameda is minor and Fair will not have any significant impact. Councilmember Daysog further inquired if the traffic traveling down Central Avenue towards the main parts of the City is minor, to which Mr. Dietrich responded in the affirmative; and stated [Fair traffic] would be on the order of 5% on Central Avenue of the entire peak hour traffic volume. In response to Councilmember Daysog's further inquiry whether [traffic] would get to Park Street, Mr. Dietrich stated traffic would not go as far as Park Street; primarily Alameda serving traffic would be using Central Avenue and would distribute through the rest of the City. * * * In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry, Jeff Hill, Editor, Antique Journal, stated many antique dealers come from the Bay Area; there are 25-40 antique and collectibles shows in the Bay Area per month; dealers have booths in antique stores and sell at shows on weekends. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Mayor Appezzato further inquired whether there are enough vendors given the large number of Fairs, to which Mr. Hill responded that on the first weekend in May, there were over 3,500 vendors exhibiting at Fairs in the Bay Area; vendors are available. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding criteria for antiques, Mr. Hill stated technically, the description of an antique by U.S. Customs is an item over 100 years old; in reality, antiques and collectibles are items that date from the 1950's back with some collectibles from the 1960's and 1970's; ABB has proposed to have the show juried which is pretty traditional in antique and collectible shows; a jury of reputable dealers look for booths with new items and reproductions and said items are removed from sale; there are two monthly shows in San Jose and a monthly show at Jack London Market which do not have flee market items; people who attend antique shows are not flee market shoppers. Mayor Appezzato further questioned how ABB will be successful in light of all of the shows in the immediate area, to which Mr. Hill responded the number of shows in the Bay Area under serves the market; there are between 1,500 to 2,000 antique and c.7,11ectibles stores that do very well in the Bay Area; by comparison, in Brimfield area of Massachusetts there are 30,000 vendors on the weekends during shows. Mayor Appezzato stated his final question is how such an event is policed to ensure that said Fair is what it claims to be, to which Mr. Hill responded if ABB has a group of reputable dealers to jury the show, said group will be able to ensure the quality level of the merchandise brought to the show. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding whether the jury approves a dealer on a one-time basis or if [dealers] are reviewed every time they set up for a show, Mr. Hill stated each time the show takes place the jury goes down the isles and reviews the booths; those who know the business can identify new items, items that are not antiques and collectibles, and items that are reproductions. proponents: Jan Miller Schaeffer, Alameda; Bette L. Barr (not present); Clint Imboden, Alameda (not present); Bill Garvine, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Sandra S. Gerlick, Alameda (not present); Pauline Kelly, Alameda; Jill Hugh, Alameda; David Menefee, Alameda; Ty Taylor, Alameda; Teresa Mc Reynolds, Alameda (not present); Harry Hartman, Alameda; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Teresa Stuart, Alameda; Ron Schaeffer, Alameda; Sherman Durham, Alameda (not present); Carol Lightner, Alameda (not present); Nicholas Chung, Alameda; Jeff Hill, Alameda; Nancy Gordon, Alameda; Monica Brown, Alameda; David Baker, Alameda; Wayne Gitner, Alameda; Susan Jeffries (not present); Stelios Tsagris, Alameda; Leon Paulos; Janice Cantu, Alameda; Kent Rosenblum, Alameda; Tom and Jeannette Bilstein, Alameda; Gerhard Degemann, Alameda; Caroline J. Hooton; Irene Landini, Alameda; Cliff Benson, Alameda Journal; Jasmine Tokuda, Alameda; Mark Barnes; Charles Ward, III, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein. *** Mayor Appezzato announced that no new agenda item shall be heard or acted upon after midnight unless the Council adopts a motion to continue the meeting to hear those items which require action prior to the next regularly scheduled Council Meeting; that he believes two items require action; those are the two items that Council needs to get on the ballot [paragraph nos. 98-378 and 98-379]; the other items will be heard at another time. Councilmember Lucas moved that the Council Meeting continue past midnight to hear the two Resolutions placing Measures on the November 3, 1998 ballot. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * * Proponents (continued) Francie Farinet, Alameda; W. Graham Claytor, Alameda; Carol Gottstein, Alameda; Clare C. Porter, Alameda; Debra Albright (not present); and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Linda Wright (not present). Opponents: Alice Garvin, Alameda; James Sweeney, Alameda; Genevieve Chesler; Sandra Cavender, Alameda; Lauren Helfand, Alameda; Jenny Curtis, Alameda; Kurt Peterson, Alameda; and Helen Laine, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is concerned with the decision to place the burden of monitoring [the event] on the Planning Department; it has not been done before; with option to do otherwise through no cause eviction, if ABB is not a good neighbor, they could not continue Antiques Fair; the burden should be on the company and its partners; if they [partners] are quality dealers, everything will be fine; at the end of six or eight months, the cream will rise to the top; if shortcomings were not addressed, the burden of trying to change the course is harder under current process [recommended by the Planning Board]; that he would encourage Council to take the original route proposed during the course of the Planning Board meeting; one difficulty is monitoring 10% of goods which are non-antiques and non-collectibles; suppose it is 12 % or 13%, who is going to count difference?; if no non- antiques and non-collectibles were permitted, said matter would not have to be addressed. Vice Mayor DeWitt requested clarification on the impact the Fair will have on the Base [Alameda Point]. Mr. Levine stated ARRA is cnrrently negotiating 15 to 20 leases; 38 leases have been executed; that he is in contact with tenants and has discussed this proposed use [Antiques Fair]; there have been some questions regarding security; most tenants think the Fair is okay; it will not impact leasing ability. In response to Vice Mayor DeWitt's inquiry regarding the plan to make sure the crowd does not get into the housing area which will be leased; Mr. Levine stated control is going to be by way of the access routes; vendors and buyers are interested in the Fair and will take the most direct route; housing is in a whole different area; hard to imagine people will get so lost that they will find themselves in the housing area; there is a possibility people might get into housing area, however, this could happen on any day. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1.998 Councilmember Kerr stated traffic coming north on the Nimitz Freeway gets off on High Street; on the 4th of July, traffic was pouring west on Buena Vista Avenue, going right on Sherman Street and following Atlantic Avenue either to Mariner Square viewing site or Rosenblum's Winery event; there was also traffic through the Tube to view fireworks; the idea that everyone will come through the Tube is not a reasonable expectation; that she was impressed by letter from Manex and some of the other people hoping to lease large areas of the Base [Alameda Point]; if finalized, said companies are guaranteeing rent 12 months a year rather than the current up and down income from movie production; during event days, extra security measures must be taken to protect specialized equipment; to minimize noise levels during event days, significant resources must be spent to adequately sound proof staging areas; Alameda is competing with Treasure Island and Vallejo in trying to attract movie businesses; the loss of business would be subtle; new movie companies would find Alameda less desirable; for economic security in the next 5 years, plans are to lease the existing facilities; the Fair would probably be a quality event, however, it [permitting Antiques Fair] would make Alameda less competitive in other business as indicated by some letters from tenants. Councilmember Lucas stated matter is a policy decision of whether large events are desired in the community; matter addresses vision for Alameda and what is desired for Alameda as a whole; that her vision is a quiet community; large events do not fit in with a quiet community; a research park and residential area being developed at FISC site; inquired whether said type of event would fit in other areas of Alameda, such as Marina Village and Harbor Bay Business Park; if event does not fit in elsewhere in Alameda, it does not belong at Alameda Point either; another deciding factor is the neighbors immediately adjacent, such as Woodstock Homeowners, who are all very concerned, long time residents and do not want the Fair; neighbors pointed out those who spoke for the Fair do not live in the West End; that she will not support the Fair; she would like to see another type of development in that area Vice Mayor DeWitt stated there were some questions regarding quality, security, concerns of neighboring businesses, traffic, whether proposed event fits Master Plan and fits in with the Webster Street area community; many questions cannot be answered unless the Fair is tried; decision is being made on speculation; in order to find out whether this event will be a benefit, the City should see if it will work; if it does not [succeed], the City can get rid of it just as fast as event got in Councilmember Kerr stated that she was suggesting a no cause eviction; what the Planning Board sent the Council places the burden of proof on the City at the end of six months; even though the powers are broad, anything is subject to litigation; the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 ait recommendation of the Planning Board would require the City to make a finding and the burden of proof would be on the City. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember Kerr would support a motion to do it the other way [no cause eviction], to which Councilmember Kerr responded "non, because of the concern raised in letters from existing tenants. Mayor Appezzato stated that he was concerned the revenue return will not be adequate to offset bringing Fair to the Base [Alameda Point]; Fair is an interim use, not a permanent use; the vision right now is to find the revenue to run the Base, not worry about what will be done in 30 years; there are difficulties in generating the revenue to keep the Base running; Area 51, Manex, and Visual Effects issues have been mitigated; if not, they will let City know; the City has the leverage to terminate if the Fair does not prove beneficial; Council could add condition: whether the two movie businesses are adversely affected, be part of ruling [at six month review]; other businesses are all interim, this is not the permanent vision for the Base; if businesses are adversely impacted, that would be cause for termination; that he would like a jury made up of 1-3 people who spoke against the Fair, and Alamedans, who seem to be well aware of these events and are willing to speak out and say it is not what we expected, to monitor and advise Council in 5 months; that he expects staff to challenge what he is saying if it is not possible. Mayor Appezzato further stated the Art and Wine Fair on Park Street is highly successful; it does impact that part of town once a year; if necessary, Council and Planning will take necessary action to terminate; inquired whether further negotiation could increase the City's portion of gross revenues from 20% to 25%; stated that residents of entire community can be assured if the Antiques Fair is not a quality event, it will be terminated; and it is fair to give them a chance. The Planning Director stated deletion of a permanent building was the result of negotiations with Manex and should be included in a motion. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding the timetable for the number of vendors moving up to 1,000, the Planning Director stated the regulatory limits in the Use Permit is a maximum of 500 booths, until ABB has gone through review; the number per event will depend on ABB s marketing. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council could request a review for every six months, to which the Planning Director stated Council may do so. Councilmember Daysog stated, for clarification purposes, that under consideration were the following points: 1) to agree with the minority report of the Planning Board; 2) to require 100% antiques Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 and collectible goods; i.e., no households that are non-antique and non-collectible; an allowance for 5% food; and 3) review every six months. The City Attorney clarified that there are two separate approaches; one is to grant a longer term Use Permit, then review every six months, and the City can terminate; the other approach is the Use Permit would automatically terminate after six months, and said party would have to reapply. Mayor Appezzato responded that is fine, and with no [application] cost to ABB. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council approval of original motion by the Planning Board, would cover the six month review. The City Attorney stated the only difference is the burden; with a six month review, if Council wants to stop the use, findings, similar to the those being made this evening, must be made; the City could do that every six months; the other option would automatically cut off permit and a hearing would be held every six months in order to continue. In response to Councilmember Kerr, the City Attorney clarified that if Council approved [permit for] the first six months and no cause eviction, said use would automatically stop, applicants would be required to reapply, and another Hearing would be required. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there could still be a review every six months; if applicant violates the Conditions, Council can terminate. Councilmember Kerr stated then the burden of proof would be on the City. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated that there should be no cause eviction. The Planning Director stated if the Use Permit lapses and Council wants to deny it, findings must be made at that time. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the City would be open to a lawsuit if the Council voted to terminate [Use Permit], to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato then inquired if the Council could write in, that in all best interests, they [applicants] will not sue the City. The City Attorney stated Council could ask that question. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 6-) Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Mr. Michaan would agree not to sue the City if it acts in good faith and does its best. Mr. Michaan responded if the City acts in good faith, yes; stated concern is they [applicants] cannot reapply every six months; it took a year to get to the Hearing tonight. Mayor Appezzato requested Mr. Michaan to get to the question. Mr. Michaan replied the answer is [that] he does not want to sue anybody; he wants to operate a successful business on an interim use on the City's piece of property at Alameda Point. Mayor Appezzato stated the Council is trying to make it work; and inquired whether Mr. Michaan will not sue the City. Mr. Michaan stated that he wanted to work with the City; that he was asked what about 25%, Council could decide to bring in another operator for 25% and throw them out. Mr. Michaan further stated that he did not want to sue the City; he had no interest in suing the City of Alameda; he is a resident [of Alameda]; that he is a business person. Mayor Appezzato stated that the City has had residents sue the City quite regularly. The City Attorney stated that maybe she could ask the specific question; [addressing Mr. Michaan] that she believes the Mayor is asking whether you [Michaan] will sign a separate covenant not sue. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the question is what is the easiest way to close the lease smoothly. Mr. Michaan stated if the City has any kind of real cause, of course, he would sign an agreement not to sue; if the City wants a blanket covenant not to sue without cause, it would be foolhardy for him, or for anyone else. Mayor Appezzato stated the City would have to show cause; what we do not want is a lawsuit, if we determine that there is cause. The City Attorney stated that the City has that right to terminate anything for cause. Mr. Michaan stated since the City has the right to terminate for cause, he would say sure. Councilmember Kerr stated that it does not prevent anybody from suing, people sue for anything. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Mr. Michaan said that he was not going to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 sue the City. Mr. Michaan stated if the City terminates ABB for cause, ABB will not sue the City. Mr. Peterson, Alameda, spoke in opposition to Council's consideration of the Use Permit. Following further discussion, the following action was taken: Councilmember Daysog moved approval of: 1) a nine (9) month Use Permit not based on detriment, i.e. no cause eviction; 2) no [sale of] household goods, i.e. no non-antiques or non-collectibles, and that 95% of the goods [sold] must be collectibles or antiques and the other 5% food and drinks; and 3) no building on the tarmac. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember Daysog would amend his motion to include the formation of an advisory group made up of citizens both opposed and pro [Antiques Fair] to give recommendations to the Council. Councilmember Daysog agreed to amend his motion. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Mayor Appezzato stated the current motion may be too burdensome on the applicant and made a substitute motion to [approve the permit] and require a review every 6 months. Mayor Appezzato further stated if there is no second on the substitute motion, that he will support the original motion. There was no second on the substitute motion. On the call for the question, the original motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Kerr and Lucas - 2. (98-375) Public Hearing to consider establishing Proposition 4 limit for 1998-99 City of Alameda Spending Limitations; and Adoption of Resolution Establishing Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 1998-99. Held over. (98-376) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13016 "Finding and Determining that the Public Interest, Necessity and Convenience Require the Construction of the Project, Authorizing Acquisition of Real Property by Condemnation, and Finding that an Offer of Just Compensation Has Been Made (Assessor's Parcel Numbers 074-0905-023 [All] and 025-3 [Portion], Property Located on the Easterly Side of Main Street between Atlantic Avenue and Singleton Avenue, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Alameda)." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Bill Garvine, representing the Alameda Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of the Resolution. Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-377) Resolution No. 13017, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 1998-99 and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures in Said Fiscal Year." Adopted; and Recommendation to accept Financial Plan Supplemental Information for 1998-2000. SKATE PARK Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he supports the Skate Board Park; he is surprised there is no provision for a change to the Budget to incorporate $50,000 from the Park Department's pathways; and he hopes Council approves it. Councilmember Kerr stated that she checked her motion made at the Work Session; the motion was for staff to do a diligent search for money to fund the study for the Skate Board Park; and she understands staff is proceeding. Eric Montez, Alameda, stated Council should put its word to paper and approve up to $50,000 toward the design of a Skate Park. Leslie Medine, Alameda, the matter was moving children. Patrick Baker, Alameda, previous speakers. Don Bergen, Alameda, s Skate Park is obscene. stated that she wanted clarity on whether forward, especially for the sake of the stated his concerns had been conveyed by ated the cost [$250,000] of the proposed Monica Brown, Counselor, Tri-High Xanthos, spoke in support of the Skate Park; stated the community needs to show support for its youth. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated City should invest in its youth and Council should set aside money for the Skate Park. Francie Farinet, Alameda, suggested the City go on line and request other communities to provide information on Skate Park designs, e.g. City of Pleasanton. Councilmember Kerr stated the third largest item in the Budget is the Recreation and Park Department; adults should take responsibility for checking out the budget; staff is very actively pursuing funding for the study; the Skate Board Park did get into the Budget as a non-funded project, and many unfunded projects are funded; a computer search for plans from other cities would be an excellent contribution to move forward; and the idea that nothing is being done about the Park is untrue. Councilmember Daysog stated the City Budget sets priorities; the Budget includes items for youth; much of the Skate Board crowd is older than the youth in Alameda Recreation and Park Department programs; proponents of Skate Park have taken the leadership in defining what their needs are and how they are going to work with local government, e.g. Chief of Police, Council, School District; proponents understand staff is trying to locate $50,000.00, not $275,000.00; that Council did make a [$50,000] commitment [at the Work Session]--a commitment in spirit is just as strong as one that is written; and the City will be looking for said $50,000. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Council has been discussing money for the design only ; the cost estimate for the project was $220,000; Council had no idea where the money was coming from; the City has been trying to find monies for design of the Skate Park, approximately $50,000. The Finance Director stated the Resolution before Council does not include the $50,000; staff was clear that Council wanted the $50,000 funded, either with external or internal funds; staff is in the process of looking for said funds and will report back to Council as soon as information is available. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether some of the design work could be done through the use of computer programs and/or advice from other cities. The Recreation and Park Director responded the young people have obtained much information on skate parks from the internet; the $50,000 is for design work by an architect in order to go out to bid and meet safety code [requirements]. Recreation Supervisor Knudtson stated that she had acquired four (4) Master Plans from other cities; each city stated that sites, requirements and skaters are different; and staff is going to do Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 the Project for as little [money] as possible. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated monies, including grants, are needed for the construction work; staff is diligently pursuing ways to get funding for design work; and a report will be available in the future. The Recreation and Park Director stated a design plan is important to grant applications. Councilmember Kerr suggested submitting other cities' design plans accompanied by a statement that Alameda's Skate Park would fall within said range. The Recreation Director stated, in response to Councilmember Kerr, submitting other cities' designs would depend upon the agency; some agencies need to stamp [approve] a [specific] design before granting funds. The City Manager stated staff could report back to Council within 60 days on funding issue. Mayor Appezzato stated the City funded work for Alameda youth; the entire Council supports the effort to make this community a better place for youth; the Council previously committed to set aside upwards of $50,000, or whatever it takes to begin design or building [a skateboard park]; spending one dollar without acquiring the $1/4 Million required to build the skate park would be irresponsible; the City should set funds aside, but not spend said funds until the rest of the funding [for construction] is secured; if something was to occur which kept the park from being built at the site, the plans would have to be changed; the City should set aside [design funds] and begin to find the rest of the $50,000 to $270,000 and that is what the City has committed to; there is not at this point $250,000 or $270,000 to build a skateboard park. Mayor Appezzato further commented on the ratification of 2% of the Utility Users Tax (UUT) [paragraph no. 98-379] which the City is required by law to bring back to the voters; stated said Tax provides a General Fund contribution of $1.7 Million to pay for services the City enjoys; the City must be realistic; resources are limited; a $3 Million liability for retirees who served the community along with other major financial issues must be addressed. Councilmember Kerr stated there are two agencies which promote said project, a County agency and the School District, which have not offered one dime toward funding; that she would place more credence in their enthusiasm if said agencies helped the City with its Budget. 41 4 Vt. )61 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he went to the Court in Oakland and observed the proceedings regarding the Museum on Mr. Gunn's Petition; the Judge in the case initially made a decision to use the 1983 By -Laws of the Museum, but he had very strong reservations about the second request regarding the actions by Mr. Gunn of assuming a one - member Board of Directors and then appointing a completely new Board of Directors; as a result, the Judge said that he was considering appointing a Special Master--a retired Judge - -to meet with all the parties to try to resolve the issues; the Judge also ruled that he was going to hold off on his initial decision regarding the By -Laws until the parties return to the Court later this month; both parties will be able to provide written responses to what they think the Special Master should do, which is due on Friday; the testimony at the Petition Hearing indicated that the records of the Museum, relating to Minutes, are in very bad shape; in fact, said records were apparently under Discovery; the last elected Board Members were unable to find Minutes indicating that the 198.1 By -Laws were approved by the Membership; that he [Mr. Roberts] believes it gives credence to some concerns expressed by the elected Board Members regarding the record keeping at the Museum; if the Minutes are not kept properly, it raises suspicions of whether other records are being properly maintained; in view of the turmoil within the Museum, which has not been corrected yet, he believes the Council should make no payments to the Museum whatsoever, including the two months of payments that Council considered during the Work Shop; no money should go to the Museum until adjudication is made by the Court and there is a properly elected Board of Directors. Laura Bajuk, Alameda, stated that she is a new director elected in January, 1998; Mr'. Roberts gave a fair summary of the morning's activity; there is a By -Laws Committee that has not been officially recognized by the sitting Board because that question is still up in the air; nevertheless, they are proceeding with trying to draft some By -Laws; in addition to the By- Laws - -which they recognize to be highly flawed - -other policies have been suggested for review, including collections policy, membership issues and financial policies; and from the few months she has served on the Board, she believes there is some house cleaning to be done. Councilmember Lucas inquired what would happen if Council did not fund the Museum's rent. Ms. Bajuk responded that she and others would like the Museum to be in a rent -free situation. Councilmember Lucas stated in the past she has suggested the Museum look at sites at the Naval Air Station and combine with the Alameda Naval Air Station Museum; there was always a total refusal to cooperate; and City's funds are very limited. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Ms. Bajuk stated that she did not believe the same response would be found now; the Past President and several others have been open to the idea of relocating at the Base. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Council had requested the Museum to do fundraising activities. Ms. Bajuk stated it was not a good time to do a funding appeal; there are wonderful potentials for the Museum, however, the Museum is not in a position to exercise them at this time; that she reviewed the Standards for a National Endowment for Humanities Grant, however, the Museum is not eligible to receive said funding because it cannot meet the standards, in terms of financial management and the required accounting. Vice Mayor DeWitt inquired when the Proceedings would be completed; and stated it is his understanding the Museum is open and the youngsters are involved in projects. Ms. Bajuk stated activities had not ceased. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he wanted the projects to continue for the sake of the citizens, and inquired when Ms. Bajuk presumes problems will be settled. Ms. Bajuk stated the Court would like more information, and an appearance in Court is scheduled a week from today. Mayor Appezzato stated Council approved two months of funding; Council did not agree to continue rental funding if the Museum got everything in order; no matter what happens, there is no guarantee of funding after the two months. Ms. Bajuk thanked the Mayor for clarification. Mayor Appezzato stated if the City does contribute to the Museum in the future, the Museum has to be responsible to the citizens who provide those funds. Ms. Bajuk stated those are same standards that they have been asking for in the past several months. Mayor Appezzato stated the arts make a world-class city. Ty Taylor, Member, Alameda Historical Museum, stated that he would like to speak for the 90% to 95% of the members of the Museum who support what Mr. Gunn and the Museum are doing as of this day; adjudication is just that--it is too bad it had to go to that; the members of the Museum are very much alive and well; there are funding programs, everything is in place, and there is probably more participation now than there has been in the last five years. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Steve Zimmerman, Alameda, former member of the Board of Directors of the Alameda Historical Museum, stated that his most recent term ended on December 31, 1997; that he has not participated in any Museum activities since that date; very few Board Members participate after their term; most organizations welcome continued participation, but not this one; for a long time, Officers and Directors have been so discouraged that they have gone on to work for other causes; the education, training and experience represented by formers Members of the Board is lost forever to this Organization; as a citizen of Alameda, he is very concerned about the current state of the Museum; it may, or may not, survive; the Board is divided over basic issues: proper management of funds, property, artifacts and exhibits, and personnel; there are people who want to do things their way or no way; their "way" does not provide for proper accountability; the Board never received a proper inventory of the assets or artifacts or the donated items; this very evening, it is not known if all the items in the collection are present in the Museum or the Meyers House; donated items may have been disposed of without authorization; the Board must safeguard the assets of the Museum; there are individuals who will not allow the Board to fulfill its obligations; there are others, including present and former officers and directors, who do not understand their duties and obligations; when members of the Board attempted to obtain information, they were met with resistance, obstruction, deception, conflict and character assassination; new members were used to run errands; when said members asked specific questions, they were hounded out of office; churning the Board allows improper activities to continue undiscovered or uncorrected, there have been improper financial transactions and refusal to make proper and timely accountings to the Treasurer for funds received in connection with the Meyers House; the Meyers House situation is a disgrace, a squandering of public and private funds, and an example of deceit, manipulation and incompetence; the persons responsible have refused to follow proper business practices; their way of handling supervision is to pack the Board with honest but ignorant surrogates who vote their way; the Museum should be put into storage while the legal battles initiated by the Curator are waged in the Courts; the Museum must be re-established equipped with proper standards and procedures and operated within the ethics and practices of healthy and successful non-profit organizations. Christ Berry, Alameda, stated that he was speaking in opposition to a minor item in the Budget: $6,400 for two months rent for the Museum in its current location; at the last Council Meeting, it was unclear whether funding would be continued after the two months; it sounds less clear this evening; it was clear the Council wanted the Museum to get its act together; all parties agree that the Museum needs to not be dependent upon such funding, i.e. rent free environment; City staff should work with the members of the Site Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 0 1 n Selection Committee, not exclusively with the Curator who does not in all cases represent the spirit of the Museum, to find a site, preferably within the next several weeks that would be appropriate for the Museum and meet the requirements for a first-rate museum that Alameda could be proud of; $6,400 should be set aside to be used for moving the Museum, rather than for rent; and additional rent money be provided only if a suitable site [is found] that the Museum can move into by October. Mayor Appezzato stated the intent of Council was to allow two months to box up, transfer, move and put [items] in storage, assuming the Museum could not get its act together; the only City commitment was [funding] for rent so the Museum would not face eviction on July 1. Councilmember Lucas stated it is very impressive that people who are so actively working with the Museum realize that the current state of affairs cannot continue, and that the City Council may be sending taxpayers' money down the drain if the City funds two months rent; a plan must be developed as to what happens from now on; that she is concerned granting two months rent now delays everything; under the current circumstances, the Museum is not functioning properly, and the $6,000 should be spent on making future functioning possible, e.g. packing up and storing so the Museum can start at another site that can be funded; all of. Council was here last year when one year rent was granted with the understanding it was only a temporary grant, and would not continue indefinitely; it was made clear a year ago that the Museum was to come up with a financial fundraising plan; in fact, the City came up with the list of grant requirements for cultural organizations; the Recreation and Park Director drafted requirements which Council approved, and said requirements were distributed to all community cultural organizations; the Museum has had its opportunity to comply if it wanted City grants; that she is not going to support spending another $6,000 just for rent; and perhaps the Special Master can take some steps on behalf of the Museum. Mr. Berry stated that he is requesting the $6,400 not be spent for rent; that the money remain in the budget and held by the Council for such time as when the Museum will move; it is clear that as many volunteers as the Museum has, and as much as people are working to pull the Museum together, they cannot continue in a situation where there is $40,000 per year rent hanging over their heads; there has been indications by the Council that there is ample rent free property owned by the City at Alameda Point that would be suitable; very clear direction should be given to staff to move post haste to meet with the Site Selection Committee so that property can, in fact, be identified and what needs to be done to move there identified. Councilmember Kerr stated that she believes the Museum has two Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 funds, essentially a short-term checking account and a long-term fund that accrue to between $40,000 to $50,000. Mr. Berry stated it is his understanding there are funds available somewhere in the area of $40,000; when those funds are gone, they are gone; and there is nothing coming in at the rate of $40,000 a year, at the moment to replace them. Councilmember Kerr stated that she wanted to point out that the Museum will not be out in the street tomorrow, but prudence and change in action will be required very soon. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was a readily available site for the Museum. The City Manager responded that staff has been working on the matter, and at this point does not have a specific site identified for a move to Alameda Point; staff certainly has been looking at the issue, and hope in the near term to make a determination whether there is a site at Alameda Point. The Assistant City Manager noted staff is working with personnel at Alameda Point. Councilmember Lucas suggested the City Attorney provide Council with the function of a Special Master; at this point, no one in the Museum has the authority to make decisions; perhaps the City Attorney could follow the litigation and provide Council with an update. The City Attorney responded that she is only peripherally familiar with the litigation; an appointment of a Special Master was made today; generally, Special Masters are given cases which are not readily decided on a yes-or-no basis, and where parties need to work together in a more cooperative function; the Special Master reports back to the main Judge, however does have the authority to call the parties in and require some informal type of resolution; and she will review the pleadings and status of litigation and report to the Council. Mr. Berry noted a Special Master had not yet been appointed; a Master typically costs $200 - $400 per hour; it is hoped something can be given to the Judge that might preclude the need for the appointment of a Master; if a Special Master is appointed, it hopefully would be for a very specific and short issue. Mayor Appezzato stated the rent has been made through June 30th; the funding was to allow the Museum to be out of [current site] by the end of August; there would be no further rent after August 31st; if the Museum is out sooner, fine; that he will stand by what the Council agreed on two weeks ago; there is no guarantee after Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 August 31st; it would be ideal if the money could be used to locate at another spot; that his concern is the Museum could be evicted if the rent is not paid for July. Mr. Berry stated there was a great deal of hope, should the Museum get its act together, funding could be continued beyond the two- month period. Mayor Appezzato stated that all Council did was agree [to funding] through the end of August; after that, depending on the Museum getting its act together, finding a location--there are many if's-- Council will look at it; the Alliance for Arts is trying to bring all of the arts together and receives no funding; there is a lot of activity and limited resources. Councilmember Daysog stated that his inclination is to continue the $6,400 rent for two months, as Council agreed; prudence dictates moving slowly; there are questions that remain to be answered; at the end of the two months, Council will review the situation; and, hopefully, the Museum community will be in place. The City Attorney stated, for clarification purposes, at the recent Work Shop Council directed two months of rent; approximately a month ago, Council adopted a Resolution approving two months of rent; the July rent has been paid and there is $3,200 for the August rent which could be used for alternative means. Councilmember Kerr stated that she read the Articles of Incorporation and the Amendments to those Articles which are on file in Sacramento with the Secretary of State; there are phrases in the Articles of Incorporation and the Amendments which should be cleared up before said matter ever returns to Council; the original Articles of Incorporation state that "the organization [Museum] does not contemplate gain or profit to any member" which would seem to preclude for any member to accept money; there are By-laws which might override the Articles of Incorporation; whether By-laws can override Articles of Incorporation should be addressed; questioned can a spouse of a member accept money in a community property State since 1/2 of money would be the property of the member; stated the Museum has status to accept historical articles from the City, however, the City should terminate said status or should have access to a complete inventory of all materials which have been donated to the Museum and said items' present locations; the City should not donate property which belongs to the taxpayer unless there is confidence that there is competent record keeping going on in the Museum. Councilmember Kerr further stated [Articles of Incorporation] continue on to say no part of net income or revenue will accrue to the benefit of any private persons" which should be honored, the Museum is in turmoil because Minutes for 1985 change in By-laws cannot be found; 1983 was the last legal set of By-laws, and the only officers who could be considered legal now were those Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 that were on the 1983 Board, however, 1984 and 1986 Amendments [to Articles of Incorporation] on file in Sacramento have signatures of officers who signed under penalty of perjury that they are the duly elected officers of the organization [Museum]; the Amendments were also approved by the membership as a whole; said Articles of Incorporation contradict the lack of record keeping by the Museum; officers who signed under penalty of perjury are responsible, respectable people. Councilmember Kerr requested information clarifying said matters. Councilmember Lucas stated that the August rent, in the amount of $3,200.00, should be held; if the Museum has a checking account of $40,000, it can easily afford to pay the rent; if the Museum cannot afford the rent, it should make other arrangements; it would be irresponsible to give the taxpayers' money to an organization that obviously has been fiscally irresponsible and cannot be trusted; and that she will oppose giving the Museum another month of rent. Mr. Berry stated, for the record, that he is not a member of past or present Board. SSHRB Don Roberts, Alameda, commended the Council for their action at the recent Work Shop: reducing the amount of money requested by SSHRB by one half; stated that the Council did not go far enough, however, the Planning Board does not have a Budget, and he sees no reason to give a Budget to another board. Lois Workman, Vice President, SSHRB, thanked the Council for agreeing to give the Board half of its [funding] request at the Work Shop; stated the Board took on some very heavy projects during the year; and there are four main goals: healthy, smart babies program; a hate-free city; Needs Assessment; and filling gaps by approaching corporations and foundations. Councilmember Daysog stated SSHRB's work should be supported; Council made a prudent decision by cutting Board's funding in half; and it is his hope, the Board prioritizes its issues [goals], especially the healthy, smart babies program. Councilmember Kerr stated one of the points of controversy is that the Board continually asks for the removal of the Municipal Code restriction which bars the Board from doing investigation of any other City and County agency"; she thought it was clear during the Budget Work Session that the Board would honor said restriction, and promised to do so; however, she understands the Board requested clarification [on the matter] and discussed removing the restriction at a subsequent meeting. Councilmember Kerr further stated that she is concerned about any board or commission creating a project status; SSHRB decided to get involved in actual projects, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 although, no doubt, worthy projects; however, she has always seen the Board more as a coordinating group of other groups responsible for projects. Mayor Appezzato stated that if the projects are worthy ones, Council should consider supporting them. Mayor Appezzato further stated that he will not support any lifting of prohibitions on investigations or otherwise; if the Board continues to discuss said matter, it should stop now, or he will vote to remove all of the funding. Judy Tam, SSHRB, stated on behalf of Board she would like to thank everyone for their support of Board activities over the last few years; among advisory boards, SSHRB is the only board without departmental support; over the last two years, the Board's work has been with Councilmembers or with the City itself; at the meeting with the City Manager and City Attorney, the Board did not request any lifting of activities, e.g. investigations; funding requested is to support interns or staff time; and said funding is not for [the purpose of] investigation. DESIGN REVIEW GUIDELINES David Baker, Alameda, stated that he was in support of funding design review; he understands the City Council has gone on record directing staff to try to find the funds for at least one staff person for design review; it is very important to preserve the architectural heritage of the community. Christopher Buckley, Alameda, representative of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS), stated the Society was surprised to see a statement by staff that funding for design review had not been looked at yet. Mr. Buckley read and distributed a letter from former Planning Director Don Patterson regarding design review funding. Mr. Buckley further commented that one option could be to move forward with the residential design review piece of the project, which the City Manager thought would be possible if the budget could be kept within $35,000. Vice Mayor DeWitt requested the City Manager to comment on said matter. The City Manager stated that he would support segmenting design review into two phases: phase 1) residential, and phase 2) commercial; $25,000 is currently appropriated as part of the budget; that another $10,000 to $15,000 could be appropriated from Reserves; and next year, during mid-cycle review, a determination could be made whether Phase 2 could be funded. Mayor Appezzato noted that the report [before Council] indicates staff will present to the City Council, at a later date, [an] Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 adjustment to the Planning Budget; and that [City Manager's remarks] should all be included therein. Mr. Buckley stated that the Report did not say how soon; the Report said at a later date; the AAPS was not sure if that meant a year from now, two years from now-- ; the Society believes this project, which has been stalled for about one and one-half years is going to die if it does not move forward quickly. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that the project is not going to die; said project is an important one. Councilmember Kerr stated the Residential Design Review will be funded starting now; the Council was quite firm on the matter. Mayor Appezzato noted that there was already $25,000 set aside. Mr. Buckley stated if the City is prepared to fund it now, that would be very good, and AAPS would be very pleased. Scott Brady, Chair, Historical Advisory Board (HAB), stated momentum should not be lost on the commercial end; the Board is working on design guidelines for Alameda Point; HAB wants to be sure there is the right momentum and direction, and that commercial design follows on the heels of residential design. Council, by consensus, adopted Resolution No. 13017, "Approving and Adopting the Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Year 1998-99 and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures in Said Fiscal Year", by unanimous voice vote - 5. Council, by majority vote, approved continued funding for 2 months rent for the Historical Museum by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Kerr and Lucas - 2. (98-378) Resolution No 13018, "Calling a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 3, 1998 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter Pertaining to the Powers of the Public Utilities Board; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment." Adopted; Transmittance of the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis; and Report from City Manager on submission of Ballot Measure Argument. Ken Hansen, President, Public Utilities Board, stated at the direction of the City Council in 1996, the PUB considered and recommended amendments to the City Charter for purposes of greater efficiency and revenue enhancement; in January, 1997, the City Council accepted the recommendation; in February, 1998, the City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Council voted to add this item to the November, 1998 Ballot; the Board has been requested to provide recommendations to the five persons who will sign the Ballot Measure Argument, as required by the Council's Policy Resolution; in addition to Mayor Appezzato, PUB Vice President Lance Russum, the Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce Bill Garvine and the City Auditor Kevin Kearney, the Board is pleased to learn that Mr. Stan Lichtenstein, President, Cable Television Advisory Committee, has accepted to take the spot originally designated for the League of Women Voters. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated that for the last several weeks he has been doing a study for a Public Utilities Fort Nightly Magazine that goes to utility regulators and people who oversee utility boards; the topic of his study has been electric utilities entering the cable television business; he examines other municipal utilities that went into the cable business; for the most part, they have been disasters; he looked at the most analogous situation to Alameda's, which is Tacoma, Washington; Tacoma is about a year ahead of Alameda in its planning; Tacoma hired SRI International to do its business plan; then, as a function of due diligence, the Public Utilities Board hired Coopers and Lybrand to provide an independent review of the Plan; the original Plan was budgeted at $67.9 Million; Coopers and Lybrand said no, it is going to be $100 Million; Tacoma broke ground about three months later and it was $100 Million; that he looked over the Bureau of Electricity's Business Plan for this cable venture in detail, as part of his research; the Bureau is stating for $8 Million Alameda is going to get Cable Television, Telephony, Intranet Access, and Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) System; the $8 Million just buys cable hook-ups for the first three years--the first 7,500 customers; actually, the Plan projects to go out to ten years: ten years to 10,500 customers, they state the additional capital investment required will come out of Operating Revenues--not if you look at their Marketing Plan; that he is suggesting the Board subject the Business Plan to independent review by a qualified auditing firm; his reasons are for example, $8 Million is only for the first three years of the Plan; how about the SCADA System?; said Plan will add to the capital investment--millions [of dollars]; Automated Meter Readers Collecting Department will add more costs to the Bureau; the intranet connections and telephony require two-way communications over the cable which will require an even further capital investment in equipment; this Plan could balloon to $20 Million; that he is calling for review because the Bureau is projecting billing the citizens $47.12 per subscriber, which is more than TCI; Bureau will not make it on revenues at that level because their marketing falls apart; and before Measure is placed on the Ballot, City should have proposal reviewed by someone who can run the numbers and come back with an independent opinion. Bill Garvine, Alameda, stated that he was in support of both Ballot Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 4 Measures. Charles Ward, Alameda, stated that he was in support of the Measure; it will open up fair competition and help with the deregulation of the utilities. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated that he was in favor of the Ballot Measures. Ryan Simmons, Alameda, stated that he wholeheartedly supports the effort; that he believes the future of not only Alameda but the Country is dependent upon this software and hardware. Stanley Lichtenstein, Chair, Cable Television Advisory Committee, stated two years ago the Committee held a series of four town meetings requesting citizens to let the Committee know how they valued TCI cable service; the majority of the responses indicated objections to TCI service, rate increases and certain programing; there was also an expression that it would be wonderful if there was another cable provider available to Alamedans; based on those findings, the Committee voted unanimously yesterday to support a ballot measure in November amending the City of Alameda's City Charter to allow the Bureau of Electricity to enter into the Telecommunications Business; the Committee believes it is in the best interest of the citizens of Alameda; Cedar Falls, Idaho has achieved a 75% customer penetration even in the face of greatly reduced rates by TCI; the Committee urges Council to vote and accept the Ballot Measure amending the City Charter to allow the Bureau to enter into this telecommunication future. Lance Russum, Public Utilities Board, stated the City should move forward with said proposal. Councilmember Lucas moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato stated proposal gives the Bureau the flexibility to enter telecommunications if the Bureau deems it financial feasible; it gives the option; it does not require that it be done; said proposal gives citizens the option to allow the Bureau to continue to go forward; it is most appropriate for the voters to decide. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas, and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (98-379) Resolution "Calling a Consolidated Special Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 3, 1998 for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors the Question of Whether the Utility Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Users Tax Should Be Continued to be Levied at the Rate of 7.5%." Not adopted. Transmittance of the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis; and Report from City Manager on submission of Ballot Measure Argument. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated when the citizens pay their utility bills they get a 7.5% tax on their rates; then the Bureau turns around and rebates, some years $3.4 Million, some years $2.4 Million and gives it back to the City; that is money which the citizens were taxed on; would it not be appropriate for the City to rebate to the taxpayers that 7.5% of the money that Bureau is giving to the City?; that he is in favor a Skate Park, and if the City used the money for that, he would not complain so much. Mayor Appezzato stated that the Council does not have a choice; voters can disapprove ratification; the must place the question on the ballot. Len Grzanka questioned whether it would not be fair to rebate the 7.5 % of the money that the Bureau turns over to the City. Mayor Appezzato responded the matter of rebate is a separate issue; the matter before Council is mandated to go on the ballot. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated that he was in support of the Measure. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Ballot Measure question should be revised so that it indicates that the City is only asking for the 2% Utility Tax, and moved said matter be held over to the July 21, 1998 Council Agenda. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, and Lucas - 4. Noes: Mayor Appezzato - 1. (98-380) Final Passage of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the Execution of a Sublease Agreement between Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, as Sublessor, and the City of Alameda, as Subtenant, for Lease of the West Ferry Terminal Parking Lot and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. Held over. (98-381) Glenn Chapman, Alameda Times Star Reporter, introduced himself to Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998 Clt, 0 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (98-382) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Held over. 4! 0 it tly There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 1:20 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council July 7, 1998