Loading...
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