Loading...
1995-03-21 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 21, 1995 The meeting convened at 7:51 p.m. with President Appezzato presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Mannix. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas, Mannix and President Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 95-166 Proclamation Declaring Tuesday, March 21, 1995, as Youth in Government Day, and Presentation of Certificates of Participation to students who participate in Youth in Government Day activities. Carolyn Knudtsen, Recreation Department, described the activities of the day. President Appezzato presented the Certificates to each of the students who participated in the activities. CONSENT CALENDAR Report (95-173) regarding streetlight maintenance services for privately-owned streetlights was pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilman Arnerich moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *95-167 Minutes of the Special Council Meetings of March 6, 1995, (Joint Meeting with AUSD) and March 7, 1995, (Closed Session). Approved. *95-168 Report from Chair, Public Utilities Board, regarding operation of electric utilities on Navy property in Alameda. Accepted. *95-169 Report from Planning Director regarding a report from the Historical Advisory Board concurring the Navy's request for demolition of buildings 75, 115, 116, 130, 135 and 137 at Naval Air Station, Alameda. Accepted. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 *95-170 Report from Public Works Director recommending approval of Architectural Services Agreement for remodeling of East Wing of Historic Alameda High School, 2250 Central Avenue. Accepted. *95-171 Report from Finance Director regarding Investment Portfolio as of February 28, 1995. Accepted. *95-172 Bills, certified by the City Manager to be true and correct, were ratified in the amount of $3,375,157.16. 95-173 Report from Chair, Public Utilities Board, regarding street-light maintenance services for privately-owned streetlights. Stan Shane, Alameda, stated he lives on a private street; Alameda has 285 private streets and 3000+ homeowners who pay the same amount in taxes as persons on public streets, and are deprived of all the services received by homeowners on public streets; he has talked to Public Utilities Board Members; if he calls the Bureau to fix a streetlight and that person falls, he [Shane] is responsible; the City is violating the equal protection clause of the Constitution by not providing community associations with municipal services; he [Shane] read a statement from a letter he had written to the County Assessor, "This is to request that I, like well over 3000 homeowners living in the City of Alameda on private streets, or so designated by the City, be given a credit on their property taxes." and read a list of services he does not receive e.g., sidewalk maintenance, street sweeping; and stated this agenda item should be eliminated. The City Manager explained the background of the matter, noted that if [streetlight] improvements are not up to City standards, streetlights will not be accepted for City maintenance; the homeowners associations in such areas are required to maintain streetlights; such maintenance is expensive for the City and liability may accrue to the City; some homeowner associations request City do maintenance at cost and that is why this matter is being brought to Council; most electrical contractors do not have the capability of maintaining these facilities; the lights in question are not in the public right-of-way and therefore Council's approval is needed to enter into a contract and authorize the Bureau of Electricity to do the work involved. Council further discussed with the City Manager, the responsibility of the homeowners association and the condition in the CC&Rs regarding private streets. Councilman Arnerich discussed the responsibility for maintenance of streetlights below 25 feet, for which the homeowner pays for a private contractor; and above 25 feet the Bureau must be contacted; and the Bureau informs the customers that they, or the homeowners association, is responsible for the streetlights and he questioned Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 liability if a Bureau worker is hurt. The City Manager stated the homeowners association must hold the Bureau harmless in such a situation; noted the request for maintenance service would be from an association and Council may, or may not, authorize maintenance. The City Attorney noted this is an optional service the Public Utilities Board wants to provide; the Council may give the Bureau the power to provide this service when requested by homeowners. Councilmember DeWitt discussed liability, in case of injury, with the City Attorney; and clarified that homeowners may choose to go elsewhere; and the City Attorney so confirmed. Councilman Arnerich stated he understands that Mr. Shane believes he should have some type of reduction in tax assessment as he does not receive the same service, and that Mr. Shane's complaint appears valid. Councilmember DeWitt moved the Public Utilities Board be delegated the authority to provide maintenance service at cost to privately- owned streetlights 25 feet or taller. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Councilman Arnerich stated the City should look at what type of compensation can be given to residents who have to pay what he would call an arbitrary tax on their property for which they are not receiving services. Vice Mayor Mannix stated he shares Councilman Arnerich's concern for Mr. Shane's objection to paying taxes for service he does not receive. The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Lucas and President Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Arnerich and Mannix - 2. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEMS 95-174 Resolution No. 12627 "Appointing Nancy J. Elzig as a Member of the City Pension Board. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the resolution. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The Deputy City Clerk administered the Oath of Office. 95-175 Public Hearing to consider Resolution Establishing Underground Utility Districts #21 Through #34 at Various Locations Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 in the City of Alameda. Christopher Buckley, Alameda, urged Council approve the underground districts; requested reproduction of historic style streetlights be considered; and suggested Council direct staff investigate feasibility of installing historic streetlights. President Appezzato requested City Manager, as a Member of the Public Utilities Board, take suggestion to Bureau to determine if that is feasible. The City Manager stated this does not need to go before the Board; he would like to continue the type of historic light used. Anthony Bruno, Alameda, stated he had been informed Otis Drive would be priority but is Number 10 on the list, and requested a look at priorities; also, trees block lights and placement should be considered; he favors improvement if done properly. Responding to President Appezzato, the City Manager stated the Bureau trims the branches from streetlights; however, he will provide the information on Otis Drive and Broadway to the Bureau; also, a problem is that the trees gravitate toward light sources. In response to Councilman Arnerich's query, the City Manager stated the last area on the priority list will probably be completed in ten to fifteen years, depending upon funding; and added he would not change priorities one through six because those are reliability and safety issues, while the others are an improvement program and can be re-prioritized. President Appezzato suggested notifying all residents of any change in priorities. Lisa Pokorny, Alameda, stated the reason she does not agree with project is because it will cost resident $1200; and inquired if this is a finalized project and when residents may provide input. President Appezzato stated if Council authorizes undergrounding, the undergrounding will be done; however, a resident has the option to have it done themselves, hiring a private contractor or having the Bureau do it. Ms. Pokorny inquired when discussions took place on the matter, and when residents in the Districts were involved in the process. Councilmember Lucas stated undergrounding was begun in the mid- eighties when Anne Diament was Mayor; and explained the benefits of undergrounding. Ms. Pokorny expressed further concern regarding costs. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 The City Manager stated if owners have difficulty with costs, payments can be spread over a period of five years. President Appezzato stated $1200 is the maximum cost, and could be less. Councilman Arnerich stated City should look at assisting young homeowners e.g., interest-free loans, spreading out payments; and he believes the City Manager will take note and contact Ms. Pokorny. Earl Peacock, Committee for Fair Taxation, Alameda, stated undergrounding is a good idea; the charge of $1200 is a very bad idea; and instead of charging residents, use the excess revenue which is generated by the Bureau and transferred to the General Fund. Dan Lydon, Alameda, inquired why his block [Regent Street] is being undergrounded. The City Manager stated the reasons are health, safety, and visual improvements. Mr. Lydon stated he is against the project completely; he does not want to pay $1200, and is concerned for people on fixed income; and submitted a petition against it [8 signatures]. Frank Terranova, Alameda, stated he has commercial property, no price is set [for undergrounding] and nothing should be passed without stating a dollar amount; there is no reason for undergrounding at this time when stores are closing and property value is going down. Mary Sutter, Alameda, stated she is against undergrounding in her district, lives on a dead end street, wants to know if property value will increase, and would it result in a higher property tax; timelines should be stated; she likes the idea of spreading payments out; persons on fixed incomes are very concerned; and City should provide list of contractors to residents. John Kirkman, Alameda, stated he is for the proposal, questioned whether provisions are included regarding future telecommunications capacities; he shares Ms. Sutter's concerns on information provided, as he thought the change would be imminent; he favors aesthetic benefit, hopes schedule will be better documented, people allowed to prepare for necessary financial arrangements; upgrades when implemented, should be current technology at that time; and resident concerns addressed. Harold Greigo, Park Street, Alameda, inquired if line to the house would be an additional cost, above the $1200. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 The City Manager explained the $1200 is the maximum cost to residents, and no additional cost, the amount will depend upon the distance from the house, if the distance is short, the cost will be less; the lines will be placed under the sidewalk at the resident's property line to a junction box; and the homeowner must underground the lines from the house to the junction box. Mr. Greigo stated he understands undergrounding for new developments but protests undergrounding for older areas of the City. Josiah Lewis, Alameda, stated he is attending meeting to defend neighbors who are not present; they are elderly and on fixed incomes, and he and they oppose undergrounding project. Julie Howard, Alameda, stated she lives on Regent Street, she and her mother who owns a home, they oppose undergrounding project primarily because of the expense; like the idea of using Bureau's extra revenue, because it is taxpayer's money. Mr. Bruno stated he thinks City could arrange with private electrical contractors, obtain unit prices, and give property owners an option; and could negotiate a lower price than property owners. Harah Terzian, Alameda, stated he has a five-plex, owner of commercial property, is responsible for all costs, and questions why no dollar amount is shown. The City Manager replied residential property is subsidized; commercial is not. Mr. Terranova stated the economy is not good; and questioned raising tenant's rents to pay for undergrounding. President Appezzato read from, and explained, contents of Ordinance 2212, N.S., 1984, establishing undergrounding districts; he stated he has been told that PG&E is required to underground throughout the State; it is obvious from comments by the City Manager that undergrounding utilities is not a mandatory requirement; suggested the matter be sent back to the Bureau of Electricity to contact residents and commercial owners and determine whether undergrounding should continue; and also if they can fund the entire undergrounding project; and another public hearing will be held to address the issue. Vice Mayor Mannix stated he is inclined to believe this was good in its time, however, times change; city government has a tendency to complain about unfunded mandates, this appears to be an ultimate unfunded mandate and he is not inclined to support this project tonight. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 Councilmember Lucas stated ordinance was enacted because the City Council at the time, believed it was for the benefit of the whole community, the homeowners, all new developments in the State must be undergrounded; the State has required PG&E set aside funds for undergrounding and other communities were ahead of Alameda in providing for undergrounding, for health and safety reasons and aesthetic benefits; it is not an unfunded mandate project, it requires major public investment. President Appezzato stated the money invested by the Bureau, and Cable and telephone companies, would be in the millions; $1200 is the maximum residents would be charged and the amount would be spread. Councilmember DeWitt stated a number of neighborhoods wonder why they are not on the list, and he believes matter should be returned to the Bureau. Councilmember Lucas moved to reduce the priority list to the first five to evaluate and determine what the property owners want to do. President Appezzato inquired if motion is 1) to look at whether the Bureau has the capability of funding the entire project, and 2) to canvass the individual neighborhoods. Councilmember Lucas agreed to include that in her motion. Councilman Arnerich stated he has not really been in favor of this project; he finds it unacceptable that people were given only 10 or 11 days notice; several months notice would have been more appropriate; he believes several valid points have been raised; Council must take a more realistic approach; the approach should be on a more professional level to determine what the taxpayer can bear, the necessity of the project and whether residents have been provided a fair opportunity for input; he will not vote for undergrounding tonight; but will vote to send the matter back for further study, e.g., charging 75,000 residents 75 cents each. Vice Mayor Mannix stated when he mentioned unfunded mandate, he was not talking about the Bureau of Electricity's contribution to this project, he was referring to cost of project from the main line to the meter. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion to send the matter back for review. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 95-176 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Approving and Authorizing Execution of Easement Purchase Agreement between East Bay Municipal Utility District and the City of Alameda." Introduced ordinance. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 Vice Mayor Mannix moved acceptance of the recommendation [to introduce ordinance by title only, and to authorize City Manager to continue discussions with the East Bay Municipal Utility District with the goal of the project resulting in no costs to the City and present the Ordinance and Purchase Agreements for adoption when the financial costs and language have been finalized.] Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Responding to President Appezzato, the City Manager stated there is a good chance that EBMUD will pay the entire bill. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 95-177 Report from Public Works Director recommending adoption of plans and specifications and calling for bids for Alameda City Hall Renovation. No. P.W. 10-93-14." Earl Peacock, Alameda, inquired why Council wants to fix up an old building for the same amount of money or possibly a little less, than to build a new building. Councilmember DeWitt stated he believes Council tried to answer Mr. Peacock's question at the last Council meeting and therefore he will proceed [move] with the recommendation at this time. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 95-178 Report from Chief of Police on Police Department Reorganization. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, stated he worked for the Oakland Police Department for 24 years, and he believes Alameda is very fortunate to have very good Police and Fire Departments. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, requested a brief review of the proposed reorganization. The Chief of Police emphasized that the basic organization of the Police Department is very strong and very good; the Department Reorganization Committee consisted of members throughout the department; the Alameda Police Officers' Association was also involved in the process; recommendations were prioritized according to needs; the committee was formed to draw ideas from people who do the jobs, and many good ideas resulted, including increase in Patrol Division, with minimal overtime, and a Special Duty Unit to address specific crime problem areas. Responding to President Appezzato, the Chief of Police stated funding will be coming from the Crime Bill, five officers have been hired and two officers are being paid from the grant at this time. Regular Mer.Aing, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 The City Manager stated the City's match is an average of 50% over three years. Vice Mayor Mannix queried if reimbursement will be received for the three officers' basic training; and the Chief of Police replied $13,000 to $15,000 is not being offset by the federal grant. Responding to Councilman Arnerich, the Chief of Police stated the Crime Bill funds will support personnel (Cops More) and equipment e.g., cars (Cops Ahead). Councilmember Lucas commended the Chief of Police and his staff for coming up with the excellent reorganization plan. Councilmember Lucas moved the recommendation (to accept and approve the upgrading of one sergeant's position to that of lieutenant to increase command coverage]. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion; and stated he is encouraged by the Chief's report because the reorganization eliminates some inside jobs in order to effect positive change on the streets where it is needed; and particularly the way extended management presence seven days a week has been provided, which was lost years ago due to budget constraints. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 95-179 Introduction of Ordinance "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Sub-Sections 3-59.4(a) (Telephone Users Tax) 3-59.5(a) (Electricity Users Tax) 3-59.6(a) Gas Users Tax) and 3-59.8(a) (Cable Television Users Tax), of Section 3-59 (Utility Users Tax), Part C (Use Tax), Article II (Taxation) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) Thereof, Pertaining to Utility Users Tax." Introduced. Anthony Bruno, Alameda, stated he has no problem with the City taking on projects that it is responsible for; and he has not seen City try to find out what the citizens want. Earl Peacock, Alameda, Committee for Fair Taxation, stated the Committee wants Council to know that if they go forward with imposing the utility tax increase without putting it on the ballot, the Committee will start a strong campaign; the taxing authority is still the voters of Alameda; and projects, e.g., hardball facility, library, City Hall should be voted on. Harold Griego, Alameda, stated increased taxes are difficult for persons on fixed income; he believes a lot of money is wasted and he protests proposed UTT increase. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated cable tax is only paid by half the Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 residents [subscribers]; and he does not believe it fair to impose any utility tax on people who are on fixed incomes. Neil P. Sweeney, Alameda, stated Council should consider creating a volunteer committee to educate everyone on how to save money to offset taxes. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated if Council and City Manager had been more prudent, taxes would not need to be raised tonight. Susan McCormack, Alameda, stated she hopes it is not too late to consider excluding seniors on low-incomes, or possibly section 8 fixed incomes, from the Utility Users Tax increase. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated he thinks an exemption for senior citizens is a good idea. Councilman Arnerich stated 70 cities in the State have a utility tax; the average tax is 7.79%; Alameda is at 5.5% and plans to go to 7.5% which will raise $1,500,000; he itemized Council-approved projects funded by grants, assessments, etc.; stated, during past five years General Fund expenditures increased only 8.61% while the State took close to $9.3 million from the City; the City in 1978 had 510 employees and now has 434 employees - 16% less; and the City is faced with dwindling resources. Councilman Arnerich stated he intends to propose to Council an exemption category for individuals and families receiving discounts [assistance], seniors 62 years old and over, individuals on Social Security, and others who find increase a burden. Vice Mayor Mannix questioned if persons who are in the PG&E Reach and the Telephone Company LIRA Programs could be eligible for exemption. The City Manager answered affirmatively; they could apply for a refund; and in response to Councilmember Lucas, stated Cable is discretionary and therefore is not included. Councilman Arnerich moved to adopt the 2% Utility Tax increase and direct City Manager, City Attorney, and Finance Director to check out the legalities of excluding the various groups and individuals that meet [assistance] criteria. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion. President Appezzato stated he will support the motion and he would like to know what the effect on the revenue will be when the matter comes back, and if there will be sufficient funds for [seismic upgrade] fire stations and City Hall [projects]. Regular Mecting, Ahmed a City Council March 21, 1995 The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) 95-180 Don Roberts, Alameda, inquired on status of Pacific Shops, Inc., lease. President Appezzato stated he has requested City Manager to bring matter to City Council. The City Manager stated the report will be ready for Council in two to four weeks. Mr. Roberts questioned the status of a lease with John Beery, including lease payments. President Appezzato stated the matter is in negotiation and will come to Council when negotiations are complete. Mr. Roberts stated if United Pilipinos of Alameda contract is not signed, the matter should come back to the Council and $115,000 payment required, and the decision concerning which charity is most deserving in the City should be made by the Social Services Human Relations Board. 95-181 Neil P. Sweeney, Alameda, noted a Naval Air Station Base Closure/Conversion Public Forum will be held on March 25th; he would like BRAG, EDAW and others, improve public relations by publicizing in every ethnic language media. 95-182 Don Bergen, Alameda, suggested City follow program in Houston where people wear blue ribbons to show support for police. 95-183 John Scott Graham, Alameda, inquired about City's interest in zoning code changes affecting the Webster House Bed and Breakfast Inn. President Appezzato replied public hearings are being held by the Planning Board on proposed zoning, and the Council will hold public hearings also. 95-184 Earl Peacock, Alameda, questioned why Alameda cannot vote on proposed taxes, such as the City of Piedmont. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) 95-185 Councilmember DeWitt requested the matter regarding the Bridgeport Apartments' application for a Drug Free Zone designation be placed on the agenda. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 95-186 Councilmember Lucas stated Council referred the naming.of the Lincoln Park Bocce Ball Courts to the Recreation Commission; she understands the Commission will not be referring the matter back to Council; therefore she would like it agendized for the April 4, Council Meeting. 95-187 Councilmember Lucas commented she was approached by veterans who stated that they do not want their activities interfered with if the City takes over the Veterans Memorial Building; and requested a report on the matter. President Appezzato stated he has also been approached, and veterans should have continued use. 95-188 Councilmember Lucas stated she has been approached by suppliers and businesses in Alameda, who want to be sure Alameda businesses receive their fair share of City contracts; she would like a list of the percentage of City contracts given to Alameda businesses, both for supplies and services, and including City Manager, Housing Authority, Bureau of Electricity, City Clerk and City Attorney. 95-189 President Appezzato stated he would like the status of the Alameda Theatre/Linoaks Motel project, the reason for considering the Linoaks property for a parking lot was because of the need for the Theatre to open prior to a theatre opening in Oakland, due to concern about who would get first-run movies; Charles Foster, Port of Oakland Director has advised him construction will begin on their movie theatre (nine theaters) next month, therefore Council may be able to take a little more time to review the Alameda Theatre project. Vice Mayor Mannix stated he has also been concerned about the project. 95-190 Vice Mayor Mannix requested staff report on progress to accommodate the soccer program. 95-191 John Scott Graham suggested better lighting for stairs in front of the Alameda High School Little Theater. President Appezzato requested the Public Works Director look into the matter. Rcgular Mczting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995 ADJOURNMENT, 95-192 President Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 11:30 p.m. in memory of Marjorie Lewis, wife of the General Manager of the Bureau of Electricity. spectfully su (I/14 17/t/ DThNE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk 'tted, The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance. Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council March 21, 1995