Loading...
1994-09-06 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 The meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with President Withrow presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Mayor Roth. Reverend Robert Keller, Twin Tower United Methodist Church gave the invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Appezzato, Arnerich, Lucas, Roth and President Withrow - 5. Absent: None. PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 94-493 Proclamation Declaring the week of October 2-8, 1994, as Public Power Week. Mayor Withrow read the proclamation and presented it to Mark Hanna, President, Public Utilities Board. Mr. Hanna expressed appreciation for the proclamation and noted purpose and achievements of Public Power agencies and the Bureau of Electricity. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated he does not oppose the proclamation; he questions the process; and requested the City Attorney provide a law that specifically states that the Mayor, without a vote of the Council, may issue proclamations. President Withrow requested the City Attorney to provide information at the next Council Meeting on issue, including when this practice of the Mayor of Alameda issuing proclamations started, for how many years, how many mayors, and how many proclamations have generally been involved. The City Attorney stated she would need to obtain the information concerning the number of years and proclamations from the City Clerk's Office, and will include it in her report. CONSENT CALENDAR At the request of citizens, reports (94-502) regarding Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service Agreement, (94-503) regarding Graffiti Abatement Program, and (94-504) concerning Alameda Homebuyer Information Fair; and ordinance (94-505) concerning unclaimed property, were removed from Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Appezzato moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. *94-494 Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of August 16, 1994, and Special Council Meetings of August 4, 1994 (2), and August 16, 1994. Approved. *94-495 Report from Public Works Director recommending acceptance of work by VCI of California for Alameda City Hall Underground Storage Tank Removal, No. P.W. 02-94-02. Accepted. *94-496 Report from Public Works Director recommending adoption of Plans and Specifications and calling for bids for the Alameda Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Rehabilitation Project, P.W. 08- 94-15. Accepted. *94-497 Report from Personnel Director regarding ratification of Letters of Understanding with City's various Bargaining Units to comply with Senate Bill 53 - PERS Conversion. Accepted. *94-498 Report from Finance Director transmitting Quarterly Sales Tax Report for period ending June 30, 1994. Accepted. *94-499 Resolution No. 12570 "Amending the Part-time Salary Resolution by Establishing the Salary for the Position of Police Assistant." Adopted. *94-500 Resolution No. 12571 "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Resolution by Establishing the Salaries for the Positions of Office Assistant and Building Inspection Supervisor." Adopted. *94-501 Bills, certified by the City Manager to be true and correct, were ratified in the sum of $3,197,473.38. 94-502 Report from Public Works Director regarding amendment to Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service Agreement between Blue & Gold Fleet and City of Alameda for fare increase and assignment of Pier 1/2 mooring rights. John Scott Graham, Alameda, stated he has seen debris floating in estuary near ferry terminal; wonders if it is from Alameda and/or Oakland; and as Coast Guard is cutting back services, a part of fare increase is needed to pay for some cleanup. Councilmember Appezzato stated the shortfall is only around $16,000; that he agrees with everything in staff report; the only reason he will not vote for it, is because he cannot support the fare increase for seniors, military, and disabled. Vice Mayor Roth stated ferry ridership is up, and the subsidy should be down; he would like Blue & Gold [B&G] requested to absorb Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 the entire amount [shortfall]. The City Manager stated the vessel has saved some money; the City has a contract with Blue & Gold to provide $500,000 subsidy to them and if we do not, perhaps will need another agreement that they will accept; this is an agreement B&G said they would accept, and there is no indication they will recoup the $16,000; B&G may do very well, however, when cold and rainy weather starts, patronage drops dramatically; and he would like to honor the agreement or come up with one that B&G is willing to do; if Council wishes staff to renegotiate, perhaps that can be done. Councilmember Appezzato stated he can support every proposed fare increase except for the seniors, military and disabled. Councilmember Lucas stated if Councilmember Appezzato wishes to make a motion to have staff renegotiate, she will second. Councilmember Appezzato moved to accept everything in the proposal except for the increase of fares for the seniors, military and disabled. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Councilman Arnerich stated a breakdown of ridership should be obtained so Council can determine what percentage of the fares are brought in by seniors, military and disabled; breakdowns should be provided to reflect each category, children through adults, 10- ticket books, 20-ticket books, to see what is selling and what is not, who are most frequent users; and a chart made which, if furnished by Blue & Gold, should be no problem; also, he does not know if this will be at the right time, this was going to be a fare increase which would not include Harbor Bay. The City Manager stated we do not have an agreement with Harbor Bay that affects this rate; The agreement is between Harbor Bay and Port of Oakland and is to maintain a 50-cent margin so that Harbor Bay is always 50 cents more than Oakland/Alameda ferry. Councilman Arnerich stated there is a 50-cent differential now between B&G and Harbor Bay and he understands a meeting was to be held today and if they change terms of that contract so that the [differential] would no longer be in it, and if Council voted for an extra 50 cents tonight and again next year, Harbor Bay would be a dollar cheaper; they would not necessarily have to increase their fare box and he does not think that is right because that is changing the agreement. The City Manager stated the Port was to meet today, could not get it on their agenda so will discuss it next week; the agreement allows HB to not increase their rates, but it cannot be any lower than the B&G rate. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 The Public Works Director read from a staff report, "the Agreement should be amended to provide that HBIA fare is to be equal to, but no lower, than those charged by the Alameda /Oakland ferry and that such fares shall be approved by the Port of Oakland and /or the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Marketing Task Force," and commented the Port and City staffs believe there is no longer the competition they were afraid of when services first began; there is no need for incremental cost difference between the two as long as they do not undercut; keeping them even is a reasonable way to go. Vice Mayor Roth questioned whether Council is bringing matter back. Councilman Arnerich stated, if B &G accepts returning the rate for the seniors, disabled and military, to what it currently is, and they can live with that, there is no sense to bring it back; if they do not, then it needs to come back. Councilmembers agreed and the motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94 -503 Status Report from Public Works Director regarding Graffiti Abatement Program. (Mayor Withrow) President Withrow stated he requested this matter be pulled [from Consent Calendar] to state that the Program pursued by staff has been effective, has not eliminated graffiti but the City is ahead of other communities and has a momentum headed in the right direction; and commended City Manager and staff for their efforts. Councilmember Lucas moved approval; Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94 -504 Report from Community Development Director regarding Co- sponsorship of Alameda Homebuyer Information Fair. Neil Patrick Sweeney, Alameda, stated the Fair will be important for anyone renting; City employees should be encouraged to attend; and noted many seminars are being held for first -time homebuyers. Vice Mayor Roth moved adoption [of recommendation that City co- sponsor Fair]. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94 -505 Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code Section by Amending Subsection 2 -63 -10 (Retention for Public Use) of Section 2 -63 (Lost, Stolen and Unclaimed Property), of Article V (Administrative Procedures and Policies), Chapter II, (Administration) Relating to Disposition of Unclaimed Property to Non - Profit Corporation Providing Public Service. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated presently the monies from sales go to Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 the General General Fund and he believes it should stay that way, instead of permitting some items to be given to homeless or youth [non- profit corporations]. Councilmember Lucas moved the recommendation [to introduce ordinance]. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA ITEMS Actions Related to Base Conversion Process 94-506 Status Briefing on Base Conversion Process. The City Manager stated there will be no briefing by the staff tonight. Diane Lichtenstein, Chair, Community Involvement Subcommittee, Base Reuse Advisory Group, stated that, on October 8th, the second in a series of community involvement forums and town meetings will be held; the community will be informed of the status of BRAG, the process, and the future planning. President Withrow commended BRAG on their efforts and particularly their outreach to keep the public informed on what is going on, and about key issues. President Withrow stated Senator Feinstein is sponsoring a package of key legislation that is going before the U.S. Senate in the next two weeks, and is hosting a forum, which he will attend, at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow [9/7/94] in Oakland, to discuss the progress of base conversion efforts, issues, and the legislation package on which she is taking leadership; and between 2:45 and 3:00 p.m., there will be press availability; he understands each Councilmember received an invitation directly from the Senator's office, and if not, they are invited. Councilmember Lucas stated that she appreciates Senator Feinstein's efforts to keep Councilmembers informed, and that Feinstein, in her summary of the Base Closure Community Redevelopment Act of 1994, addresses many concerns City staff and BRAG have been raising, and the need to make the base available for economic development; and she [Lucas] hopes the Act passes. President Withrow agreed and stated the whole package is designed to make the conversion process more practical, more realistic, and to bring it back into focus on President Clinton's intent. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated he does not object to spending money to help 460 people; each person in the program is allowed about $5022; he would rather the money be divided among the 460, have them told Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 to go to school or start a business, and the money will be better spent. President Withrow clarified that Mr. Bergen's comments were about policies and regulations of the State, not the City of Alameda. Neil P. Sweeney, Alameda, stated he would like noted at the meeting tomorrow, the topics of relocating UCSF research hospital and second campus on NAS; expediting toxic cleanup; and international environmental university. Herb Severns, Alameda, stated he would like mentioned tomorrow, the possibility of building electric cars at the base property. 94-507 Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 12572 "Disapproving TCI's Rates and Charges for Basic Cable TV Service Tier and Associated Equipment for the Period of September 1, 1993 to July 14, 1994, and Prescribing Rates and Charges for Same Pursuant to Sections 76.936, 76.940, 76.941 and 76.942 of the Rules and Regulations of the Federal Communications Commission." The Assistant City Manager stated the 1992 Cable Act gives Council authority to regulate the basic tier of Cable rates; explained procedure involved, including that Council is to take action and rule on the rates in effect during the period September 1, 1993 through July 14, 1994; and rates must not be set arbitrarily; explained how rates are set, and are determined to be "reasonable," utilizing displayed charts; and introduced John Risk, Communications Support Group, consulting firm working with Alameda County cities on this matter; and Public Works Department Management Analyst, who came forward to assist in answering questions. The Assistant City Manager stated he recommends a public hearing be held; comments taken; hearing closed; and rates ruled on, declaring rates that were in effect were overcharging for the basic tier, prescribe the rates that are in Attachment A, and finally, leave the issue of the 936 [basic] subscribers as unresolved, and that can be handled under Resolution, Section 5, attached which states "the Operator is hereby directed and ordered to provide a refund plan to the City within 30 days of the date of this hearing, pursuant to which it proposes to refund to the subscriber rates;" and when they come back with this refund plan, at that point, we will deal with the potential for refunding to those 936 customers. Vice Mayor Roth questioned disapproving basic rates and charges; stated we don't care if they charge less than the max so he will not vote to disapprove the rates they charge for equipment. Do we want that in there? Mr. Risk stated one thing necessary to know is that the permitted Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 rate is a function of unbundling the equipment costs and the amount permitted, given the FCC formula, it is necessary to accept the findings in both, you are not instructing the Cable company to raise its rates, you would simply be instructing it to know that the amounts reported, or the actual charges on September 1st through July 14, were not consistent with the rules of the FCC; it would be in the City's interest not to argue why they should raise rates; TCI, in this case, because it is trying to serve a larger area, probably had to come up with an average rate that would work in all its communities; Council may want to question TCI if they come forward to offer testimony; in essence, the way staff report is written is consistent to the way the FCC asks cities to take the procedure; the method in preparing the report is consistent with the instructions of the FCC. Councilmember Lucas inquired if it is in Council's discretion to review this matter at this time, or if those 900 subscribers had not existed who do not have converter boxes and remotes, we would have been better off to just leave things alone for the consumer; could we have just forgotten about this review? The Consultant replied Council has the opportunity to not act on this and, by default, the rates TCI proposed on the 1st of September would be approved; it is a good point that by no action, Council would approve, by default, the rates they came forward with, in September, but it would be at the expense of those 900 subscribers that were basic-only subscribers with no equipment who are rightfully due $.54 times 10 1/2 months that they were subscribing. Councilmember Lucas inquired if those subscribers would have a claim against TCI or can they only make the claim through the City? The Consultant replied the FCC rules delegate the enforcement of basic Cable rates to the franchising authorities, the local governments, and the regulation of rates needed to receive that equipment; the FCC will act on a complaint that was filed previously regarding the Cable programming services tier or the expanded basic tier, but the subscriber would have to file the complaint to the FCC in order to receive action. He asked if any complaints were filed on behalf of the residents on the Form 329 on the expanded basic? and the Assistant City Manager replied not with the City, and not that we are aware of. The Consultant stated "then, those subscribers would not be protected in that way." Councilman Arnerich read the display chart on the rates, and inquired if TCI can raise the fees at their discretion to $1.87. The Consultant stated TCI can only begin doing that after July 14th; on August 15th, TCI filed a form 1200, a new form required by the FCC, which allows them to now state what their new rates would Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 be after July 14th, and they have raised their rates in line with these charges. In response to Councilman Arnerich, the Assistant City Manager stated those rates are in effect now. The Consultant stated Council has the right to review the reasonableness of that rate as you review the 1200 form. The Assistant City Manager stated that those numbers will come back to Council with the review of the new 1200 form in another 60 days. The Consultant stated the proceeding tonight is only from September 1st to July 14th. Councilman Arnerich stated he wants to know what TCI's new projected proposal is. The Assistant City Manager stated the rates that are in effect for equipment are 14 cents for remote on a monthly basis and $1.87 for converter boxes. Councilman Arnerich stated, according to newspaper article in USA Today, TCI has 12 million subscribers in the United States, and additional income from an $.88 increase would produce almost $140,000,000 [in one year], and when the matter comes back in about 60 days, TCI must come back with numbers that "round out," as he is not happy with the Cable industry. Councilmember Appezzato stated a lot has been said in Washington, D.C. about Cable rates and that Cable rates were going to be reduced, and they never seem to get reduced; apparently there is only one way to get the rates down, and that is competition, and his question is: when is competition going to come to force TCI and others to charge rates that are a little more reasonable. The Assistant City Manager responded TCI has stated competition is "right around the corner" and they are feeling the affects of it in Los Angeles. President Withrow opened the public portion of the hearing. There being no speakers, President Withrow closed the public portion of the hearing. At the request of a person from the audience, President Withrow reopened the public portion of the hearing. Stanley Lichtenstein, Cable Television Advisory Committee, stated regarding the equipment, it is not necessary on new sets to have a converter box or a remote, which bothers him as he believes TCI is Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 f :=7 taking advantage of that; people will less and less, need converters or remotes. President Withrow closed the public portion of the hearing. The Assistant City Manager stated that, even with Cable-ready television, it would be necessary to have a converter box as premium signals are being scrambled. Elaine Barden, Manager, TCI Cablevision, confirmed the boxes unscramble the system to receive premium services, so converter box is required. Councilman Arnerich stated Council should accept the recommendation of Assistant City Manager, however, when this matter comes back to Council, he believes there is a charge on Council to see to it that every subscriber gets the most for their dollar and to be sure that we are doing our best legally to see to it that nothing is being done that does not protect the ratepayers; and when Council comes back within 60 to 90 days, that we should be well prepared, have all facts and figures before Council -- where it stood, where it stands; and if it has any bearing, what TCI used to give in terms of free TV Guide, a break to seniors, no late charge penalties; everything seems to have shifted in their favor and not in the favor of the subscriber. Councilmember Roth seconded the [Arnerich] motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94-508 Authorization for the Mayor to send a letter to the California Public Utilities Commission urging them to require PG&E to develop and proceed with a plan for both new procedures and system improvements for gas facilities in the City of Alameda. (Mayor Withrow) [Resolution No. 12573 "Urging the California Public Utilities Commission to order the Pacific Gas and Electric Company to Develop New Procedures and Systems Improvements for Gas Facilities in the City of Alameda" Adopted.] Mayor Withrow noted the letter is self explanatory, straightforward and short. Councilmember Lucas commended the Mayor for the draft letter, stating it is needed; the City cannot tolerate the lack of safety in our gas system as it currently exists; PUC recommendations [to PG&E] should be followed to ensure the security of our citizens. Vice Mayor Roth suggested perhaps a resolution from Council might be more effective. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 Mayor Withrow stated he is not sure people read our resolutions; legally, a resolution is good. Councilmember Lucas suggested adding a paragraph [to the letter] that the City Council unanimously supports the Mayor. Vice Mayor Roth suggested the letter could be sent, and a resolution placed on the next agenda. Councilman Arnerich agreed with Councilmembers; stated we cannot have any more man -made errors, must take all steps to ensure PG &E is taking every preventive measure for safety of homes; and he favors the [letter's] wording that the City "strongly urges" the PUC to proceed with requirements for PG &E; whether by letter by Mayor and City follow up by resolution as Vice Mayor suggested, we should do it. The City Attorney stated, procedurally, Council could pass this item and direct the City Attorney to draft a resolution that contains those items and that would be approved by vote; and is an option to having it come back; she could circulate it if anyone wishes to add to it, however, she would keep within the parameters of the Mayor's letter and he could attach the resolution to his letter. Councilman Arnerich stated he strongly encourages that. Mayor Withrow stated, in his mind, the resolution is important to provide for purposes of City records as there is better control over resolutions than over correspondence. Mayor Withrow stated he would entertain a motion to that effect incorporating the City Attorney's suggestion. Councilman Arnerich so moved. Vice Mayor Roth seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94 -509 Report from Assistant City Manager regarding options for the use of the Linoaks site. (Councilmembers Appezzato and Lucas) * Report from Police Chief concerning law enforcement and public safety oriented issues involving the Linoaks Motel in 1993 and 1994. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated no matter what is done to the Linoaks, it will always be a third -rate motel; he is disturbed that safety problems have been going on; he finds only one good option in the report -- that the motel be demolished and a parking garage constructed in its place. David Plummer, Alameda, stated the Linoaks has become an Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 embarrassment; 283 police calls in two years is a waste of money and police personnel; almost five years ago, the Committee to Retain the Carnegie Library strongly suggested that the Linoaks be turned into a housing complex for senior citizens; the existing units could easily be upgraded and the entire complex beautified into something Alameda could be proud of; and seniors could have a well-located living situation they could well-afford; urged Council stay with the option they voted on two weeks ago to go ahead with renovation and expansion of Carnegie Library site; and in the meantime do something for the senior citizens. Honora Murphy, Alameda, stated her child in a wheelchair came with her 20 years ago to ask for access to the Library; she recommends Council not rush into doing anything about the Linoaks, think about saving the Carnegie Library building, and perhaps some other use, and about giving the City a library it deserves. Lois Hanna, Alameda, stated she is charter member of Friends of the Library; 20 years she has served for the purpose of a new library; urged Council to hang onto the Linoaks site; State may put on another bond issue; the best use for the Carnegie is to give it to the Historical Museum for a dollar a year, and ask the public to pass a bond issue to make it earthquake-proof. In response to Councilmember Appezzato's request for an oral report from Chief Police on magnitude of problem and what he sees in the future, the Police Chief stated that today he spoke with Officer Kim Rodekohr who originally identified the problems at the Linoaks; since she initiated a project at this location, questionable activities have dropped off dramatically, as persons with "dubious occupations" have left on their own volition; noted other changes which have occurred including consistent garbage pickup, signs posted by staff addressing loitering in conjunction with training of Linoaks staff, and that the zero tolerance policy has been effective; and the situation of the Linoaks has been dramatically cleaned up. In response to President Withrow, the City Manager described the contract the management company of the Linoaks has with the City; noting that the former owner has a contract to keep the motel in good operating condition, free of nuisances and provide the City with payment regardless of the patronage, at $192,000 per year; that the Assistant City Manager has been working with Linoaks management and has put them on notice, and there is a provision in the contract for cancellation with 90 days notice; and if City believes there is no way they can improve the operation, they can be replaced; they have been improving. Councilman Arnerich stated that the Linoaks has not just become a problem, it has always been; it is incumbent upon the City to run it better, however, we did not have the proper supervision; what Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 Council must do is to go on from here and make the best of it; we now have the proper mechanics with the City Manager's office and guidelines set down; let us proceed forward; if present management does not comply, then the City can step in; we should take [staff report] Option No. 1 to maintain the property and perhaps at some point library funding may be available. Vice Mayor Roth stated he agrees with Councilman Arnerich concerning Option No. 1, however, he understood when the vote was taken on the Carnegie, that matter would come back very shortly, and to act before all numbers on the Carnegie and the Linoaks come in, would be acting in haste; and unless the City Manager can provide some creative financing, we will probably end up going to the public, and everything, for the present, should remain as it is. President Withrow stated we need to develop a capital budget, a full scope of capital projects; identify a proposal and various means to pay for it over a period of time; and put it to the public for a vote. Councilmember Lucas discussed with the Police Chief how the Linoaks problems compare to those of other motels within the City. The City Manager described problems at other motels and the manner in which they were handled. The City Manager, at Councilmember Appezzato's request, noted the City's Capital Budget and Unfunded Capital Projects, and that President Withrow appears to be requesting a funding program for all of the projects. President Withrow stated he would like to go forward in a similar manner to what the Alameda Unified School District did. Councilmember Appezzato commended the Police Chief and Department for their work with the Linoaks. Councilmember Appezzato stated it appeared from the consultant's presentation on the Carnegie, that renovation and expansion of the Carnegie would be less expensive than building a new library at the Linoaks; discussed parking and parking garage; and agreed with other Councilmembers that the library issue is to come back to Council to discuss a library at the Carnegie or Linoaks sites; and he is willing to wait a short time more, although he does lean toward the Carnegie because of its historic nature and cost; and perhaps Planning Department can look at Linoaks site for development as part of Civic Center. He is prepared to wait for staff to come back, to go to the voters for a bond issue for a new library, select a site, and then decide whether to rehab the Carnegie for something else, or dispose of the Linoaks, and so Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 moved. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Councilmember Appezzato clarified his motion is to go with the original recommendation that he moved when Council had the Carnegie and the Linoaks before it; for staff to come back with options; and present the location; stated he is prepared to support a bond issue; staff should come back to Council with options; Council should select one, and he will go with the cheapest site which he believes will be the Carnegie; and then Council can make the decision on what to do with the Linoaks. Vice Mayor Roth stated that when the report comes back, the figures should be "individualized and presented in a fashion everyone can understand," and he wants a stronger feeling of exactly what it would cost to purchase adjacent property. President Withrow stated Council would be better off by having a capital budget project that includes a library; and if the library is at the Carnegie, what to do with the Linoaks; the cost of renovating City Hall; a parking garage, if Council is going to build one; and "any other upgrades we want to get into," put it into a package, get a total cost, and go to the residents of the City for guidance; and a timeframe should be chosen. Councilmember Lucas stated when the staff report comes back, she would like to know more about the timing of the theater redevelopment because the parking garage ties in with the needs of the theater and the commercial redevelopment, and Council must analyze how much of a share should be attributed to the Carnegie. Councilman Arnerich stated Vice Mayor is right that everyone must know what the numbers are and what is to be built, and must be up to date; so he will support Option No. 1. Mayor Withrow stated the motion does not incorporate what Councilman Arnerich is looking for. Councilman Arnerich said he would make that a substitute motion. Vice Mayor Roth seconded the substitute motion. Councilmember Lucas called for the question. Councilman Arnerich clarified the substitute motion is to stay with Option No. 1, as recommended by the Assistant City Manager, to retain the Linoaks at least until all possibilities for State Bond funding for library construction have been eliminated; "and so forth and so on, and for it to be returned to staff and also to our consultants to come back in a more efficient form as to what it's going to cost, when and where and what the total numbers are." "I Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 will put a substitute motion in that this evening we are up for Option No. 1." Mayor Withrow stated he does not agree with either motion; what Councilman Arnerich talked about, in his mind, argues for having a complete picture presented by the City Manager in terms of all of the buildings and facilities as they relate to all of the functions so that we do not have the tradeoffs; for example, whether the parking garage should be a part of the theater support or the upgrade of the business area, or the support of the library; we need to take all of that, put it together and say, here is what we want to do. Vice Mayor Roth stated Councilman Arnerich could amend his motion to include that. Councilman Arnerich stated he could add that to the motion; he thought that was self-evident, that could be put in and get a total package. Following further discussion, Mayor Withrow suggested a limit of 30 months to retain the Linoaks. Councilman Arnerich stated he will put 30 months into his motion. Mayor Withrow called for the question "on the revised motion which does put a limit on one, but encompasses a staff report that would address all of the significant capital projects that we have on the table and a way to package it and present it to the public so the public can vote on it, and we can get on with the process of raising funds and get some of these projects completed." Councilmember Appezzato stated he wants to support bringing back the capital projects, and does not believe it should be combined [in the same motion] with the Linoaks. Following further comment, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Roth and President Withrow - 3. Nayes: Councilmembers Appezzato and Lucas - 2. Absent: None. 94-510 Annual Report from Planning Director regarding implementation of City of Alameda General Plan. Councilmember Lucas moved approval. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94-511 Report from Planning Director regarding deletion of Seaport Priority designation for the Oakland Supply Center, Alameda Annex. William Garvine, Executive Director, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 '-,.,)-, reminded Council of its approval in concept, of Chamber's plan for the property and believes, on October 4th, Chamber and City will present a comprehensive plan for a use that would not be enhanced by a seaport designation. Vice Mayor Roth stated he understood a letter was sent once for the seaport designation to be eliminated, or at the very least, held until a report comes back. The Planning Director clarified a letter has been sent representing the Council's position; however Council has only taken action with respect to the NAS and NADEP; the City Manager sent a letter recently which reminded them of Council's position on the two properties, pointed out property owners of Alameda Gateway and Encinal Terminals had independently requested that their properties not remain designated seaport; in light of discussion Seaport Planning Advisory Committee (SPAC] had, in which consultants recommended against seaport designation, and SPAC's direction to the consultant to look at retention, bringing the matter before Council for specific consideration for a policy position to represent to the group seemed appropriate. Vice Mayor Roth stated he thought Alameda Gateway and Encinal Terminals were included when NAS was considered, and the Planning Director replied that matter will be placed on the agenda for specific policy determination. President Withrow stated it appears to him the major points brought up concerning NAS prevail; we should be advocates for local planning, controls and determination as opposed to having external elements preempt what we can do. Councilman Arnerich stated he believes that is what the meeting is about with Senator Feinstein tomorrow, he agrees with Vice Mayor Roth the areas discussed were all incorporated, including the NAS, Naval Supply Center, NADEP. The City Manager stated he concurs with the Planning Director's comments that NADEP and NAS were included, but not this particular site; the property owners or leaseholders of Alameda Gateway and Encinal Terminals have individually sent letters to the Seaport Committee and asked that their properties be removed. Councilmember Appezzato inquired if the owner of Encinal properties requested all or a portion of his property be deleted from the seaport priority designation; and the Planning Director stated she is not sure. Councilmember Appezzato stated that can be corrected, but he thinks it is just a portion of it; and that is the important point. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 Councilmember Lucas moved the recommendation [to support removal of the Seaport Priority designation from the OSCAA consistent with the Council's March, 1994 conceptual approval of the advanced technology center, and direct the City Manager to communicate the Council's determination to the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee, BCDC, and MTC]. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion. Councilmember Appezzato stated he will be addressing the seaport designation for the NAS at the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and is concerned about the new land and business venture; there is not a great deal of information even though it is coming forward on October 4th; in March, when Council gave conceptual approval of Chamber's project, he had concerns which are still valid, and the project appears to be proceeding as though it is a full-blown proposal; and when he is convinced we are prepared, he may support it. Councilmember Appezzato further commented on a report sent by Bruce Knopf, Economic Development Manager, to City Manager concerning possible application to OEA. Vice Mayor Roth stated he has been against the seaport designation; he does not see the advantage; and inquired if, without seaport designations, options on what we could do with the property would increase. The Planning Director replied that is a correct statement; with the seaport designation, the uses of the property are limited to marine terminals and related activities, public access, and public and commercial recreation where they do not conflict; BCDC, MTC will permit interim uses for relatively lengthy periods of time, 10-15 years, but it is still difficult to do certain kinds of projects which require substantial capital investment. Vice Mayor Roth noted without the seaport designation, a marine dock, terminal, whatever, is still allowed, and there is no downside to the City eliminating the seaport designation. Councilmember Lucas inquired what are City's chances of eliminating the designation. The Planning Director stated she believes a good reason must be provided, and much of the argument set out by the consultants such as identifying both the positive aspects of the site, such as proximity to a dredge channel, versus some of the limitations in terms of access to that immediate area, and other considerations; and if that is what fits into the future of our sites in Alameda, we can work with a local landowner to develop a port activity even if it is not so designated. President Withrow stated our cost of real estate and lack of access and egress onto the island are not good; and from his standpoint from bodies he sits on, he would be surprised if it is not removed. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 The motion to approve staff's recommendation carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Lucas, Roth and President Withrow - 4. Nayes: Councilmember Appezzato - 1. Absent: None. Abstentions - None. 94-512 Report from Police Chief regarding Police Department staffing. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated President Clinton's Crime Bill has passed recently and he would like to know what benefit Alameda will receive. The Chief of Police commented on hiring of officers under the Crime Bill; stated Requests for Proposals [RFPs] are on a fast track and materials may be out by November; the Police Department will monitor the situation closely and submit applications when appropriate. Mayor Withrow stated he requested the matter be placed on agenda as public safety is paramount, and his number one priority; the Crime Bill was to provide up to a 20% augmentation with matching funds required; and it is incumbent upon the City to obtain its full allotment. Mayor Withrow stated he will be in Washington, D.C. for President Clinton's signing of the Crime Bill; he will pay for the trip and bring matter back to Council for decision on reimbursement. Councilman Arnerich stated the Police Chief will submit RFPs and we must stay on top of the situation. Mayor Withrow stated he would hope the City Manager would ensure coverage where shortages currently exist. Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the report. Vice Mayor Roth seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 94-513 Resolution No. 12574 "Expanding the Hours City Facilities, other than the Bureau of Electricity and the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, are Open for Business to 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. on Thursday and Declaring Friday as a Holiday Pursuant to Charter Section 22-8 and Amending Resolution No. 3663." Adopted. Responding to Councilman Arnerich, the City Manager confirmed the Mastick Senior Center will remain open on Friday. Responding to Councilmember Lucas, the City Manager addressed the library, noting additional information on City facilities was provided as it was thought that questions might arise. Councilmember Appezzato stated he is voting no because the Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 resolution implements the 4-day work week. By consensus, Council moved adoption, and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Lucas, Roth and President Withrow - 4. Nayes: Councilmember Appezzato - 1. 94-514 Ordinance No. 2674, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Subsection 2-1.7 (Rules of Order) of Section 2-1 (The City Council), Article I (The City Council and Meetings of the City Council) of Chapter II (Administration), and Replacing with New Section 2-1.7 Establishing Rules of Order by City Council Resolution." Final Passage. Councilmember Lucas moved final passage. Vice Mayor Roth seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 94-515 Don Bergen, Alameda, stated the [federal] Crime Bill will not put 100,000 police officers on the street because the money is not available; made several suggestions including billboards at City entrances that state, "We welcome you to Alameda where crime of any kind is not tolerated," and children must be taught "right from wrong" in schools. 94-516 Charles Hurt, Alameda, stated his house has been burglarized twice recently; a number of robberies have occurred in the vicinity of 1339 Caroline; commended the police for their assistance; requested Council look into Safe Streets Now Program, and Chief Matthews proposal for internal program; he finds either one acceptable; illegal drugs problems are occurring and households allowing these problems to persist should be addressed; and offered his services as a resident in implementing a formal program to address these issues in an ongoing basis. 94-517 William Kane, Member Airport Operations Committee, addressed recent City correspondence to the FAA concerning helicopter operations; and questioned why the Committee and Council had not been brought into the matter; the Airport Operations Committee should have an opportunity to meet soon on the issue; and requested Council look into the matter. Councilmember Lucas requested a staff report replying to Mr. Kane's questions. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS 94-518 Consideration of Mayor's nomination for an appointment to the Civil Service Board. This matter was pulled form the agenda. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 0 - 94-519 Consideration of Mayor's nomination for an appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. This matter was pulled from the agenda. 94-520 Restrictions on panhandling, and garbage and recycling container scavenging. (Councilmember Appezzato) Councilmember Appezzato requested a report on whether the laws in place are adequate and enforcement results. President Withrow stated since there are substantive agenda items under Council Communications, speakers will be accepted after the Councilmember who requested the item has spoken. Don Bergen, Alameda stated when recyclables are placed in containers, it is expected they will go back to the garbage company, and bills will be kept down; however, people go down the street and steal the recyclables during the night. 94-521 Responsibility of parents for graffiti and vandalism to private/public property committed by juveniles. (Councilmember Appezzato) Councilmember Appezzato requested a report on juvenile vandalism enforcement. 94-522 Status of residential and commercial abandoned buildings. (Councilmember Appezzato) Councilmember Appezzato stated he understands the City Manager may be ahead of him on this item, and will be coming forward with a report on the status of commercial and residential abandoned buildings. Barbara Kerr, Alameda, complained of a building in 1100 block of Buena Vista, abandoned for years, with a burned out core and lack of boarding up. Mayor Withrow stated he assumes the City Manager will address that property, e.g., what are our legal rights. 94-523 Vice Mayor Roth requested for the next meeting, a staff report on the status of the City's accomplishments as they relate to Americans with Disabilities Act. 94-524 Vice Mayor Roth requested, for the next meeting, a report on mobile ice cream vendors; he has received complaints of multiple trucks accumulating at the parks, and would like a report on licensing. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994 Mayor Withrow requested, in addition, safety aspects concerning where the trucks position themselves, ring bells and children are crossing main arteries. 94-525 Councilman Arnerich requested enforcement of regulations for abandoned vehicles; and stated officers ticketing speeders have his strong support. 94-526 Councilmember Lucas requested staff report back concerning maintenance of 1416 Sherman Street, as she has received complaints. 94-527 Mayor Withrow requested a report on the speed of vehicles on Otis, a standard report which identifies the average flow of traffic; and he would like it broken out as to commuter and non- commuter time. 94-528 Mayor Withrow requested staff address the matter of the corner of Mound and Otis concerning EBMUD street work. ADJOURNMENT 94-529 Mayor Withrow adjourned the meeting in memory of former Alameda Fire Chief William Hilbish. pectfully submitted, D NE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting of City Council September 6, 1994