1991-03-07 Adjourned Regular CC MinutesADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA.
MARCH 7, 1991
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m., with Acting President Arnerich
presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember
Withrow. Reverend Doug Henderson gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Thomas, Withrow, Arnerich,
and President Corica - 4.
[President Corica arrived and took his
seat on the dais at approximately 8:30 p.m.]
Absent: Councilmember Camicia - 1.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION,
91-123 Vice Mayor Arnerich announced that, prior to the regular
meeting, Council adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
Initiation of Litigation pursuant to Subsection (c) of Government
Code Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act; and
Labor Relations pursuant to Subsection (a) of Government Code Section
54957.6.
Council took no action but will adjourn after the regular meeting to
a Closed Session to take action on the items that were to be
discussed.
CONSENT CALENDAR
At the request of Councilmember Thomas, 91-137 report regarding
Partnership Transfers, and 91-138 Bills, and at the request of
Vice-Mayor Arnerich, 91-136 report transmitting Sales Tax Quarterly
Report, were removed from the Consent Calendar to the regular agenda.
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried
by unanimous voice vote - 3.
RESOLUTIONS
*91-124 Resolutions No. 12075 "Amending the Time for Compliance with
Affordable Housing Unit and Fee Requirements for Title XX of the
Alameda Municipal Code." Adopted.
*91-125 Resolutions No. 12076 "Adopting Plans and Specifications
Identified as No. P.W. 11-90-17, calling for bids for Alameda
Municipal Golf Course Replacement of Maintenance Facilities and
office Complex Remodel, and directing City Clerk to advertise."
Adopted.
March 7, 1991
54
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
*91-126 Ordinance No. 2531, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Section 17-432 of Chapter 4, Article 3, Title XVII,
to establish Stop Signs at Kilkenny Place and Applegate Way at their
intersection with Kofman Parkway." Adopted.
*91-127 Ordinance No. 2532, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Section 17-333 thereof relating to prohibition of
parking at various times and locations to facilitate street sweeping
(Minor adjustments to existing time schedule)." Adopted.
MINUTES
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of the Minutes of the Regular
Council Meeting of February 19, 1991, and the Special Council Meeting
of February 11, 1991. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
Vice-Mayor Arnerich noted a number of items would be taken out of
order, to allow time for the arrival, and participation, of Mayor
Corica in certain key issues.
91-128 Resolution No. 12077 "Appointing Clarence R. Kline as a
member of the City Pension Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of the appointment.
Councilmember Thomas stated she would abstain until the arrival of
Mayor Corica as it is his appointment.
Council returned to the matter of the appointment, following report
on parking meters at Washington Park (91-131).
91-129 From Public Works Director on Signal Prioritization Study.
The Public Works Director reviewed the background of the matter,
noting a consultant has given staff assistance and has produced a
program which he [the Director] believes is objective and
understandable and more sensitive to the needs than the list
previously in use.
Councilmember Thomas moved the recommendation [to accept the report,
adopt the methodology of prioritization of signals as City policy,
and direct staff to proceed]. Councilmember Withrow seconded the
motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
Vice Mayor Arnerich noted Dane Ericksen wished to speak.
March 7, 1991
Councilmember Withrow moved to reconsider the vote in order to allow
the person from the audience to speak.
Dane Ericksen, 1210 Broadway, stated that under the proposed waiting
system, Broadway and San Jose intersection is No. 10 on the list for
a signal, yet Broadway and San Jose has had 22 preventable accidents
in three and one-half years, much more than at some other
intersections listed; and requested a traffic signal for the
intersection.
The Public Works Director stated, in regard to Broadway and San Jose
intersection, staff has been in contact with Caltrans over the past
few months and its final letter in January, 1991, stated the signal
is not warranted at this time.
Vice Mayor Arnerich stated his concern about the intersection, and
requested the City Manager elaborate on the difference between
Broadway, a State Highway, and other streets, what the City expects
to pursue and what City responsibilities are.
The City Manager replied Broadway is a State route, a Caltrans street
and responsibility, Caltrans controls whether the City can install a
traffic signal, did not agree to pay their share of a signal and may
not permit one; if Council wishes, staff can request Caltrans allow
the City to install a signal if the City pays the entire cost.
Councilmember Withrow inquired why the State has taken its position.
The Public Works Director responded there were several accidents per
year over several years, and one year there were no accidents, which
lowered the meeting of warrants for accidents; and it has not met
many other warrants, e.g., San Jose has very low traffic, is not
close to schools while other intersections with low accidents have
many young school children crossing streets, and further explained
other factors considered.
Councilmember Thomas requested the definition of an accident, to
which the Public Works Director replied an accident is a vehicle
striking another vehicle, an object or pedestrian, and it is reported
on the SWITRS report, a State-wide reporting system the Police
Department uses.
The Police Chief stated that, for the Police to take a traffic
accident report, there must be some physical injury, some injuries or
contact with a pedestrian, or property damage.
The Public Works Director noted the system provides for evaluating
other improvements that may be less expensive but just as effective
as the use of signals.
Vice Mayor Arnerich stated Council should consider the Signal
Prioritization Program and listen to Mr. Ericksen's concerns about
the safety factor at Broadway and San Jose; and suggested a vote be
taken on the signal prioritization, and see what can be done with the
State to procure a signal for that location and if a signal cannot be
March 7, 1991
r
put in, the City should pursue a four-way stop sign for the
intersection which would slow the traffic and stop cars, and he may
call for a vote on the approval of the signal prioritization.
Councilmember Withrow noted a vote had been taken; perhaps it can be
done again, it should have been vacated but was not.
Vice Mayor Arnerich stated, because of the situation, probably a vote
would be in order again.
Councilmember Withrow so moved. Councilmember Thomas seconded the
motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
Vice Mayor Arnerich stated that would be with the stipulation that
the City, the City Manager's Office and the Public Works Director
make every attempt to see that Mr. Ericksen and the neighbors on
Broadway are given every opportunity to express their choice of what
should be there [at the intersection of Broadway and San Jose] to
help alleviate the dangerous condition that exists.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
91-130 From Mr. & Mrs. Kurt Braun, Alameda, suggesting a proposed
tree ordinance for the preservation of large trees.
At the request of Vice Mayor Arnerich, the City Manager stated Mr.
Braun has requested Council consider a tree ordinance to protect
large trees on private property; and the Planning Director has
recommended the suggestion has some merit and should be studied by
the Planning Board; the step for Council to take would be to have
the Planning Board review the matter and make a recommendation to
Council.
Councilmember Withrow so moved.
Councilmember Thomas stated she is concerned about how much the study
is going to cost.
The Planning Director replied the proposal is to go before Planning
Board essentially to determine whether there is merit to pursue the
suggestion, therefore, the initial part of the study would be
conducted by staff so the Planning Board can make a determination on
whether to proceed further, and if it did, that might become
expensive.
Vice Mayor Arnerich commented that Planning Board's determination
would come before Council and at that time, an appropriate price
range would be submitted.
The Planning Director agreed.
Vice Mayor Arnerich stated a motion was before Council to forward the
matter to Planning Board to conduct a study to report back to the
Council.
March 7, 1991
57
Councilmember Thomas stated she would not second the motion because
what people do on their private property is well within their own
discretion.
Vice Mayor Arnerich stated this was brought up by a private person
and he would second the motion. The vote failed due to lack of a
majority vote of the Council (Section 3-4 of the City Charter):
Councilmember Withrow and Vice Mayor Arnerich - 2. Noes:
Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: Mayor Corica and Councilmember
Camicia - 2.
91-131 From Public Works Director on the hours of operation of the
parking meters at Washington Park. (Vice Mayor Arnerich)
Related Written Communications:
- * From Edward E. Welsh, Alameda, expressing various concerns
regarding the parking meters at Washington Park.
- * From Eugene Chase, Alameda, suggesting certain hours and days for
the operation of parking meters at Washington Park.
Vice Mayor Arnerich noted a third letter had been received by Council
from Tim Harr, [1414 San Jose Avenue] and requested that be noted in
the minutes.
Vice Mayor Arnerich explained the subject matter is the parking
meters at Washington Park approved by Council some time ago with the
intent of alleviating problems, especially during summer months and
weekends due to people that park all day long to e.g., go to the
beach, depriving park users.
Angelo Galli, 1262 Weber Street, stated he has been playing at
Washington Park since the tennis courts were installed and he has
never had parking problems, and would like to see meters taken out.
Edward Welsch, 1170 9th Street, #12, read a petition from over 200
Washington Park users opposing parking meters and supporting Council
rescinding its order to place the meters and calling for immediate
removal of the meters; stated the meters were to minimize the
drinking of alcohol, loud playing of radios; the signs in the park
which prohibit such behavior, and the police monitoring, have been
very effective; there are now no problems; and he requested removal
of the meters.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated at one time serious problems
existed; the Police Department over the past year has done a
remarkable job of enforcing regulations and has cleaned up the area;
he sees no reason to have parking meters at this time; he
recommended there be no enforcement of the meters until there is a
demonstration of a genuine need for them, on Saturdays, Sundays, or
holidays.
Eugene Chase, 1076 Camellia Drive, stated if the meters were
installed to solve parking problems, operation should be when the
March 7, 1991
58
beachgoers swarm to Crown Beach during warm weather months, on
weekends and holidays; if the meters are to raise money, the meters
should be installed at all parks and at the Golf Course.
Sharon Gardner, 1064 San Antonio, Co-chairman, Alameda Recreation &
Parks Bay Area Ladies League Team, stated forty women regularly play
tennis at Washington Park each week and are irritated over the
installation of parking meters, as most are retired or have small
children; other teams are hosted, and guests must pay, but teams do
not pay at any other courts in cities where matches are held.
Mayor Corica took his seat on the dais; and noted he was late due to
a reception for Vice-Admiral Robert Kelly, Commander-in-Chief of the
Pacific Fleet, who was stationed in Alameda a number of years ago,
when he was Captain of the U.S.S. Enterprise.
Councilman Arnerich stated Washington Park, with its many areas,
e.g., athletic courts and fields, picnic areas, has many users, and
he reiterated the problems at the park e.g., loitering, drinking; he
is convinced there is a need for meters during the months of April 1
through September 30 from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., on Saturdays,
Sundays and holidays.
Councilmember Withrow stated Council must look at the meters at the
Park as a means of modifying behavior, not a revenue producing
effort, and moved Council could put it [hours of operation] on a test
[basis]; run the meters during summer months mainly, [April 1
through September 30], weekends [and holidays] only [from 9:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m.], for one year; if not needed, [Council] withdraw it.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if the parking heads can be changed to
three or four-hour duration instead of two hours.
The City Manager replied the mechanism can be adjusted, and noted
that users should not return and insert more money into the meter as
time is limited.
Councilman Arnerich responded the reason is probably so that
merchants get a turnover in trade, but persons in the park, picnicing
and then playing a game, take three, four or five hours, and perhaps
that perspective should receive consideration.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
The Public Works Director clarified the ordinance [Ordinance No.
2452, N.S.] delegates setting park hours to staff, so ordering of
meter changes, etc. to accomplish the motion can proceed and perhaps
be in operation by April 1.
March 7, 1991
59
Councilmember Thomas moved the resolution of appointment of Pension
Board member be taken out of order. Councilman Arnerich seconded the
motion, which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
* * * * *
[Return to Pension Board Appointment - See 91-128]
91-128 Resolution No. 12077 "Appointing Clarence R. Kline as a
member of the City Pension Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Thomas moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember
Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote
- 4.
The City Clerk administered the Oath.
* * * * *
APPEALS
91-132 Consideration of an Appeal of a Planning Board denial of Use
Permit UP-90-29 to permit a conversion of a residential use to a
professional office use of a property located at 2042 Central Avenue
within the R-5 (General Residential) District. Applicant: Gerald
Gelle, DDS.
President Corica explained the procedure of the Hearing; and noted
there would need to be someone to screen the evidence to be sure no
new evidence is submitted; and the Planning Director will screen and
apprise Council if any new evidence is submitted.
The Planning Director reviewed the background of the matter.
On the call for proponents, the following persons spoke:
Cris Corpuz, 509 Santa Clara Avenue, stated concern regarding the
handling of the matter, the application had been recommended, and was
subsequently disapproved; he believes consideration for future
changes in the Zoning Ordinance have been considered as a basis for
the decision of the Planning Board, and he believes the decision
should have been based on the current zoning ordinance provisions.
Councilmember Thomas inquired if, in the Combined Land Use Plan
[CLUP], the recently adopted Housing Element was used, to which the
Planning Director stated the Housing Element was not used, reference
was made to the old CLUP which recommends against the further
intrusion of commercial uses into residential areas.
Councilmember Thomas stated she does not see how the Planning Board
could have made a determination using CLUP; believes the better
procedure is to remand this matter to the Planning Board in view of
the recently adopted General Plan and Housing Element, and see
whether or not it is consistent, because as far as she is concerned
the legal affect of an inadequate General Plan is that it is invalid,
so what point is it to find this either consistent or inconsistent.
March 7, 1991
60
The City Attorney stated she believes the Hearing and the Application
were completed prior to the adoption of the new CLUP, therefore, this
Appeal, which is an Appeal of the Hearing under the old CLUP, would
be based solely on the old CLUP; and she believes it would be
inappropriate to change the rules at this point and apply the new
CLUP, since the Hearing was completed under the old CLUP.
Councilmember Thomas responded by reading "Legal Affect of Inadequate
General Plan," by Daniel. J. Curtin, Esq. of McCutcheon, Doyle,
Brown and Enerson.
Councilmember Withrow requested the Planning Director explain what
the impact would be, if in fact the new General Plan was being used
vis-a-vis the old General Plan.
The Planning Director replied the new General Plan has stronger
language than the CLUP and recommends much more strongly against
these intrusions.
Councilmember Withrow stated his point is that, if the new General
Plan is used, the direction of sustaining the Planning Board would be
stronger, as opposed to overruling; and the train of conversation
was not leading in that direction.
Councilmember Thomas responded it is an invalid General Plan [former
Plan] and is not meaningful; that the point is, she objected to this
when Council discussed adoption of the General. Plan; City was very
strictly changing and limiting commercial uses in R-5 and other
reesidential zones; staff responded Council would address matter
through implementation regulations; there is latitude in doing that,
to set policy and criteria to enforce policy; this is the first case
which shows that needs to be done; and believes people should have a
voice in setting the policy.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if Council is within its jurisdiction
and responsibilities in acting on the Appeal, and can Council act on
the Appeal in a legal manner.
The City Attorney replied Council can, but it is her opinion Council
should use the old General Plan because that is what the Planning
Board used.
Following additional Council discussion concerning appropriate
procedure, President Corica commented Councilmember Thomas's desire
to discuss the legality of the matter is valid, rather than
proceeding with testimony and then having someone say [the procedure]
is illegal.
The City Attorney stated proceeding under the old General Plan is
legal; and Council may proceed.
Richard McKenna, 2040 Central Avenue, stated his home is the only
single family-owned home immediately adjacent to Dr. Gelle's
property, he and his wife would be more affected than any other
March 7, 1991
61
homeowner in the neighborhood, and they both support Dr. Gelle's
position and urge Council rule in favor of Dr. Gelle.
Dr. Gerald Gelle, 850 Oak Street, noted he grew up and attended
school in Alameda, and would like to live and practice here; he has
the first report from staff, the issue of parking was addressed and
he will put in five additional [parking) spaces off-street, another
concern was design and he will not change the exterior except to
improve it with better landscape and perhaps paint; a dental office
is directly across the street, the Red Cross and a number of offices
are on the street, therefore he does not believe the character of the
neighborhood would be changed nor would his office be a detriment;
and presented a petition of 282 people who support him.
President Corica stated it was not necessary to submit the petition.
Liza Marie Flores, 1411 Sherman Street, stated she is a Real Estate
Agent, believes the City is fair, is a multi-cultural community, and
encourages and respects diversification; of 67 dentists in the City,
one fulltime and one parttime are Filipinos; the young people in the
Filipino community need a greater representation of positive
professional role models and urged Council consider the Appeal.
On the call for opponents, the following person spoke:
Rudd Gast, 2054 Central Avenue, stated the matter was defeated twice
by the Planning Board, he has submitted a petition and a great
percentage of the persons in the subject area are opposed; he is
surprised an in-lieu fee can be paid if parking spaces are short;
Appellant needed seven parking spaces, provided five and paid for
two, so the City might look at the in-lieu procedure.
President Corica closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Withrow inquired about the fee in lieu of off-street
parking.
The Planning Director responded, if it is shown the money can be
spent in some appropriate fashion to off-set the affect of not having
the parking, which is determined by the City's Transportation
Engineer, then a fee can be paid and the fee is based on the square
footage which equates to a parking space.
Councilmember Withrow stated CLUP is trying to achieve reduction of
impact on infrastructure, parking is a consideration and if housing
stock is continually converted to professional or business use, the
purpose is being defeated.
Councilmember Withrow posed the question, if Council were to be
consistent with that, would it support the Planning Board's decision?
The Planning Director replied yes, and added that is true in both the
CLUP and the new General Plan.
President Corica stated he believes the Appeal process is very
important; this matter involves an Alamedan who attended school in
March 7, 1991
62
Alameda and would like to open a small business here; he is also
aware of the apartments in the area, traffic congestion, and he wants
to know the matter can be handled legally; both sides have been
heard and he would be inclined to vote for allowing the Applicant to
open the office; and he would put on a Condition that, if the office
is to be expanded and other people will be in the office, then coming
back to show the reason for expansion would be required.
Councilmember Withrow inquired whether the Mayor would consider that
consistent with the philosophy of Measure A.
President Corica stated the density issue discussed under Measure A
was the density of many residents coming in; this [situation] is not
like a 10- or 15- unit apartment house which would cause more
congestion than a dental office with one dentist.
Councilmember Withrow stated Council is considering a dentist
facility that is without limitation and he believes it is not
consistent with Measure A.
Councilmember Thomas stated she believes Council should remand the
matter to the Planning Board, request the Board to review in the
context of the City's valid General Plan and at the same time, set up
some criteria that allows flexibility to cover this situation, and
perhaps waive the fees, and waive the time limit on Appeal if the
Applicant wants to appeal again; and keep this an open situation.
Councilmember Withrow stated he would support that initiative,
sending the matter back to the Planning Board.
Councilman Arnerich noted the Assistant City Attorney stated that
having the Zoning Ordinance consistent with the General Plan is
"desireable;" commented that does not imply "mandatory;" stated the
Applicant had come in good faith, received approval, proceeded in
good faith, and that is why he is sympathetic; he sees no reason to
remand to the Planning Board; and that would only tighten the matter
for Dr. Gelle.
Councilmember Thomas requested the standard for overturning the
decision of the Planning Board.
The City Attorney stated Appeals are governed by the Alameda
Municipal Code, Section 11-1101, and the standard for reversal is set
forth in subparagraph (f) which she read to Council.
The City Manager commented staff did not give approval but
recommended approval to the Planning Board.
Following further discussion on the legalities involved, the City
Attorney stated, in answer to the question of whether Alameda has a
legal requirement that the General Plan and the Zoning be consistent,
the answer is no; under State law, general law cities are required
to be consistent, charter cities are not; secondly, there is a
provision in the Alameda Municipal Code, Section 11-162(a) which
states that Use Permit shall favorably relate to the General Plan, so
March 7, 1991
63
it is required that they favorably relate, however, the term
favorable relationship is not a legal term, it is a subjective
determination; Council has the Appeal and the transcript; if
Council believes in the documents that it finds a favorable
relationship, then it can decide either way.
President Corica stated it is time to go forward; it would be
wasting more time to remand to the Planning Board; he believes all
aspects of the matter have been discussed, and entertained a motion.
Councilman Arnerich moved that the Findings and Conditions be for
approval of UP-90-29; the Findings Nos. 1 through 6 as stated in
the memorandum from the Planning Director on March 7, 1991, and the
four conditions be made a part of the motion; and read the
Conditions into the record as follows:
1. The Applicant shall pay an In-Lieu Fee for a two off-street
parking deficit pursuant to Section 11-14C12(c) of the Zoning
Ordinance.
2. The Applicant shall provide an appraisal of the land value
prepared within the last twelve months to the Planning Department
prior to the issuance of an Occupancy Permit for the dental office.
3. The Applicant shall plant two trees along the rear property line
in addition to those shown on plans to protect adjacent residential
uses from impact of automobiles in the parking lot.
4. The project is subject to design review; no additional
notification of adjacent property owners will be required.
The Planning Director noted there was one Condition discussed by
Council, that would require the use to come back if it were to
expand; and clarified he believes the Application states one person
operating alone.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
91-133 From Planning Director regarding Harbor Bay Business Park
Entitlements. (Councilmember Thomas)
Councilmember Thomas stated she had requested a copy of what had been
covered in the EIR allowing Harbor Bay Isle 156-foot tall buildings
at the end of the Business Park; because she did not receive the
copy she has looked and height is not addressed; the two reasons she
is concerned about the buildings is because of the Airport and the
airport's [proposed] expansion; she would still like to see where
the matter is addressed, and guidance given to the Planning Board.
President Corica stated any building over 100 feet in height would
require a Variance which would have to go before the Planning Board.
March 7, 1991
64
Councilmember Thomas stated the 156-foot height is in the letter
Harbor Bay believes is their entitlement and her question is the
possibility of a 25-foot tower on top of that; that took place in
the early 1970s; the question is whether that is valid and can the
City challenge; does the Settlement Agreement require implementation
of something which was illegal at the time it was approved?
President Corica stated Councilmember Thomas appears to be telling
the Planning Director to remind the Board that a Variance can be had
but there is concern about the towers and antennas.
Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance
Withrow seconded the motion which was
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich,
3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1.
1.
of the report. Councilmember
carried by the following voice
Withrow and President Corica -
Absent: Councilmember Camicia
91-134 From Community Development Director regarding Reprogramming
CDBG Funds and Amending 1990-91 CDBG Final Statement.
President Corica commented on the Thanksgiving Program for the
Homeless which raised $42,098 in donations through efforts of
churches, organizations and individuals; the response was
heartwarming; and the City is providing matching funds.
Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of report and recommendation.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
91-135 From Finance Director transmitting Sales Tax Quarterly Report
for period ending December 31, 1990.
Councilman Arnerich requested the Finance Director to, in the future,
provide Council with a graph showing sales tax produced by the Harbor
Bay supermarket and commercial area.
The Finance Director stated she will request the graph.
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of the report. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4.
91-136 From Finance Director regarding Partnership Transfers - Harbor
Bay Isle Associates. (Councilmember Thomas)
Councilmember Thomas stated what she requested was information
specifically provided to the County; read a report dated January 7,
1988, of the attorney hired to review the matter; noted the statute
of limitations problem, and other related information.
President Corica stated he would like to know if there is anything
the City can collect.
The City Manager stated there is money that was collected on the
March 7, 1991
65
transfer of the partnership for the City's real estate transfer tax
for the transfer made in 1987; the real property tax for
reassessment, if more than 50% of the partnership was transferred, is
addressed by the Finance Director's memorandum; however there is no
information that indicates that more than 50% was transferred.
Under discussion, Councilmember Thomas stated the question is, and
has been since 1983, should the property have triggered a transfer
tax when it was transferred, and should a reappraisal have been done;
the City cannot answer question without knowing control and
information that the former Finance Director requested from Harbor
Bay Isle; the question is how can we [City] define criteria which
triggers transfer tax and reappraisal to catch future transfers.
Councilmember Withrow moved acceptance of the report. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Withrow, and President Corica
- 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: Councilmember
Camicia - 1.
BILLS
91-137 Councilmember Withrow moved ratification of the Bills,
certified by the City Manager to be correct, in the amount of
2,516,870.68. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was
carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich,
Withrow and President Corica - 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1.
Absent: Councilmember Camicia - 1.
RESOLUTIONS
91-138 Resolutions No. 12078 "Approving Memorandum of Understanding
between the Alameda International Association of Firefighters, Local
689, and the City of Alameda." Adopted.
Councilmember Thomas moved adoption of the resolution. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion.
Councilmember Withrow inquired how the pay raise would be paid for.
The City Manager stated it is more than was budgeted for 1991-92 and
will be a Council decision in the next budget, and will be done by
cutting the budget or by raising fees and taxes.
To Councilmember Withrow's question on what the proposal might be to
cover that [funding], the City Manager replied he would like to come
back with some amendments to next year's budget and give Council some
choices, as was done in December when suggestions were made regarding
adjustments in expenditures and revenues; and ways to provide more
revenues were suggested.
Councilmember Withrow stated to cover the raise, costs will need to
be cut, therefore services will be cut to some extent, or taxes
increased, and inquired what options there will be to increase taxes.
March 7, 1991
The City Manager reviewed options: utility users tax and user fees.
Councilmember Withrow stated it is incumbent upon this Council to
determine the tax revenues that must be generated and the degree to
which the citizens will be encumbered or what services are going to
be cut.
President Corica stated there is talk about cutting but not much talk
of cutting was presented when management raises were made; he does
not want reserves cut; the City Manager has done a good job in
increasing reserves; and if Council is going to do it [raise pay]
the City Manager must come up with a plan as he did before, cutting
department budgets successfully.
The City Manager noted increases are not being discussed for this
fiscal year, but next fiscal year; and management has no pay raise
for calendar year 1992; the pay raise is for firefighters for 1992
and no others have that increase.
Councilmember Withrow noted whatever is cut, is cut permanently until
new revenues can be obtained, and the Memorandum of Understanding is
something this City, right now, cannot afford; the City does not
have the revenue to pay, and this is the sort of thing, spending
money the City does not have, which drove the School District in
Richmond into bankruptcy, is driving the City of Oakland toward
bankruptcy and other government agencies as well.
Councilman Arnerich stated it is not spending money the City does not
have, because City has nearly five million dollars in reserves; the
Police and Management have been given raises; fire personnel has not
had a raise in 14 months, lagging far behind other cities; the City
can begin making up the need by not immediately replacing persons who
resign or retire, and by belt-tightening; the present contract will
only bring the Firefighters up to parity and give the money that
should have been given years ago.
Councilman Arnerich stated Council will rely on the City Manager to
come to Council and state where the budget can be cut.
President Corica stated he does not want to use Reserves, that should
be left for disaster or great emergency; the City Manager, with the
Department Heads, found ways to cut the budget, was very successful,
and that may be necessary again; after this year passes, Council
will need to look at what is happening throughout the State, the
country and with the economy, but now, he believes this group which
has not had a raise for some time should be caught up; and one of
the reasons is the fact that there was not this sort of discussion
when management received a raise and he is glad he voted against it,
because all of the angles were not looked at as they are now; and
suggested Council go forward and vote on the matter.
Councilmember Thomas stated comparing the Alameda Fire Department to
those of other cities, there is not a true comparison because Alameda
goes above and beyond what other departments do, so placing them at
the mid-point of others who do less than they do is not comparable;
March 7, 1991
further described the responsibility of the Department; and stated
she does not believe the bargaining was in good faith, and what is
being offered is fair for people who put their lives on the line.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Thomas, and President Corica - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Withrow - 1. Absent: Councilmember Camicia - 1.
91-139 Resolution No. 12079 "Approving Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Alameda/Bureau of Electricity and Alameda City
Employees Association."
Councilmember Thomas moved adoption of the resolution. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
91-140 Ordinance No. • N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Sections 20-141, 20-142, 20-161, and 20-171 of
Article 4, Title XX thereto pertaining to the Time for Compliance and
the Appeal Fees for Adjustments of the Affordable Housing
Requirements for New and Expanded Development. Introduced.
Councilman Arnerich moved introduction. Councilmember Withrow
seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
91-141 Ordinance No. N.S. "Approving and authorizing
execution of a Lease for property located at 1537 Webster Street."
Not heard.
91-142 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending Ordinance No. 535, New
Series, by repealing or revising various sections of the Alameda
Municipal Code." Introduced.
At Councilman Arnerich's request, the City Attorney explained the
project of recodification, which the City Attorney's Office and
Departments have been working on; more substantive changes will be
brought before Council at another Meeting.
Councilman Arnerich moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Thomas clarified the recodification is the same as what
Council has received, and the City Attorney stated it is the same
with the exception that certain sections have been moved, and
renumbered.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
Councilmember Thomas stated there are some sections covering Transfer
Tax that she believes should be amended in view of what she stated in
1987 and what former Councilmember Karin Lucas stated in 1983; and
she would like to see those changes incorporated.
March 7, 1991
68
91-143 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Properties within the City of Alameda by amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1277, New Series, that property located on the south side of
Buena Vista Avenue between Benton and Arbor Streets." Introduced.
Councilmember Withrow moved introduction of ordinance. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4.
91-144 Ordinance No. N.S. "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Properties within the City of Alameda by amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1277, New Series, that property located at 2112 and 2114 Lincoln
Avenue." Introduced.
Councilmember Withrow moved introduction of ordinance. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4.
NEW BUSINESS
91-145 President Corica announced John Barni, Sr., wrote a letter of
resignation from Finance Committee, under recommendation of his
doctor; commended Mr. Barni for his dedication and competence on
the Committee; and stated, as Mr. Barni was his appointee, he has
named Larry Bolton to replace Mr. Barni on the Committee.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ITEMS
91-146 Jeanette Ramsey, 2310 Lincoln Avenue, Alameda, stated she
has been harrassed by the Police Department for about one year;
recently accused of bumping Sgt. Pete Morey's (Officer Pete Murray)
car; offered to pay damages; was not allowed to see the Police
Report and given false information resulting in not going to Court
and arrest; believes it could be discrimination due to her residence
at Linoaks Motel and requested an investigation.
Police Chief Shielis noted that Ms. Ramsey has filed a Citizen's
Complaint and the matter has been turned over to Internal Affairs.
ADJOURNMENT
91-147 President Corica adjourned the meeting to Closed Session, at
11:03 p.m., with a moment of silence to congratulate and thank the
troops for their valorous actions in the Persian Gulf.
Respectfully submitted,
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with
the Brown Act.
March 7, 1991