1991-07-16 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
JULY 16, 1991
The meeting convened at 7:55 p.m. (following the meeting of the
Community Improvement Commission) with President Withrow presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Roth. Reverend Doug
Henderson gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, Roth,
and President Withrow - 5.
Absent: None.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S)
President Withrow announced that [prior to the Regular Council
Meeting at a Special Council Meeting at 6:30 p.m.] Council adjourned
to Closed Session and took the following action:
91-489 Labor Negotiations, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Government
Code Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act: gave further instructions; no
action was taken.
91-490 Initiation of Litigation, pursuant to Subsection (c) c
Government Code Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: no action wa
taken.
91-491 Significant Exposure to Litigation, pursuant to Subsection (b)
of Government Code Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: no action was
taken.
PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
91-492 Presentation of Certificates of Appointment to Members of the
Airport Operations Committee.
President Withrow stated the Committee will be charged to represent
the City in determining what course of action should be taken with
respect to the expansion and current operations of the Oakland
International Airport; noted the importance of the Committee and
time-consuming, technical, detailed work involved.
President Withrow presented Certificates to the Members present:
Robert DeCelle, William Kane, Signe Nelson, Gary Thomas, and Barbara
Tuleja; commented that opportunities of service will be available to
others who expressed interest in serving; and requested those who
would like to contribute should speak to Councilmember Camicia and
investigate the possibility of being appointed by him to
subcommittee.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lucas moved approval. Councilmember Roth seconded the
July 16, 1991
motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of July 2, 1991; and Special
Council Meetings of May 28, 1991, and June 25, 1991. Approved.
*91-493 Report from Public Works Director recommending award of
contract to Mission Property Maintenance for landscape maintenance of
median strips and special areas for the Fiscal Year ending June 30,
1992, No. P.W. 5-91-5. Accepted.
*91-494 Report from Public Works Director recommending award of
contract to M.F.Maher, Inc. for repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter and Driveway for the Fiscal Year ending June
30, 1992, No. P.W. 5-91-6. Accepted.
*91-495 Report from Public Works Director recommending award of
contract to Riley & Sons Construction, Inc., for Minor Street Patching
with Asphalt Concrete for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1992, No.
P.W. 5-91-7. Accepted.
*91-496 Report from Public Works Director recommending award of
contract to Gateway Landscape Construction for the installation of
House Laterals from the Street Main to the Property Line for the
Fiscal Year ending June 30, 1992, No. P.W. 5-91-8. Accepted.
*91-497 Report from Community Development Director recommending
approval of a year-end adjustment to the Fiscal Year 1990-91 Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Budget, and an increased Fiscal Year
1990-91 Loan between the City and the CIC. Accepted.
*91-498 Resolution No. 12132 "Authorizing execution of Agreement
between the City of Alameda and Alameda County to form a "HOME"
Consortium." Adopted.
*91-499 Resolution No. 12133 "Authorizing Execution of Settlement
Agreement, Dissolution of the Alameda County Training and Employment
Board/Associated Community Action Program as a Joint Powers Authority,
and Execution of New Associated Community Action Program Joint Powers
Authority." Adopted.
*91-500 Final Passage of Ordinance No. 2561, N.S. "Approving and
authorizing the execution of a lease for real property located at 1435
Webster Street, and rescinding Ordinance No. 2467, N.S." Adopted.
*91-501 Filing of Affidavit of the City Manager and the Chief of
Police pursuant to Section 17-11 of the Charter of the City of
Alameda. Approved.
*91-502 Bills, certified by the City Manager to be correct, were
ratified in the amount of $1,268,411.52.
AGENDA ITEMS
91-503 Resolution No. 12134 "Resolution reappointing Janice Grumman
July 16, 1991
204
as a Member of the City Historical Advisory Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Roth seconded t.
motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mrs. Grumman
was not present.
91-504 Resolution No. 12135 "Appointing Archie Waterbury as a Member
of the City Library Board."
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Lucas seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
91-505 Resolution No. 12136 "Reappointing Peter K. Templeton as a
Member of the City Planning Board."
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Lucas seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mr.
Templeton was not present.
91-506 Resolution No. 12137 "Appointing Mary J. Brandenberger as a
Member of the City Planning Board."
Councilmember Lucas moved adoption. Councilman Arnerich seconded the
motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
91-507 Resolution No. 12138 "Reappointing William M. McCall to the
City Public Utilities Board." Mr. McCall was not present.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Lucas seconded the
motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-508 Resolution No. 12139 "Appointing Lois M. Workman as a Member
of the City Social Service Human Relations Board."
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was adopted by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
91-509 Resolution No. 12140 "Appointing Lois M. Workman as a Member
of the City Social Service Human Relations Board."
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilman Arnerich seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office.
91-510 Hearing in consideration of, and, Resolution No. 1214_
"Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, any
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping & Lighting
District 84-2." Adopted.
July 16, 1991
Councilmember Roth stated he would abstain on this matter.
To Councilmember Lucas's question regarding the landscaping on Lincoln
Avenue, the Public Works Director replied the selection of plantings
has not been made but the plantings will be drought tolerant and he
believes trees will be put in.
Councilmember Lucas stated she is pleased trees will be put in because
maintenance of the area has been a problem and trees should be easier
to maintain.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilman Arnerich seconded
the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas and President Withrow - 4.
Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstentions: Councilmember Roth - 1.
91-511 Hearing for consideration of, and, Final Passage of Ordinance
No. 2562, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code, Title X, Chapter 2,
Electrical Code, Articles 3 and 4 (In Part) by substituting the
following Sections in their entirety: Section 10-2316, Fees for
Permits and Inspection, Section 10-2318, Schedule of Fees, Section
10-235, Special Annual Permit, Section 10-237, Application for Special
Owner's Permit, Section 10-239, Special Furnace Dealer's Permit,
Section 10-239.1, Special Equipment Installer's Permit, and Section
10-248 by adopting the 1990 National Electrical Code, as amended."
Adopted.
Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, inquired about the purpose of the
ordinance, if it is, e.g., an increase, a new way to tax homeowners.
The City Attorney replied the ordinance adopts the Electrical Code but
also includes Section 10-2316 which states fees for permits and
inspections shall be as adopted by resolution of the Public Utilities
Board (PUB); the Board will be setting the rates and fees.
Mr. Degemann questioned why the setting of fees is being taken away
from the City Council.
The City Manager explained the PUB is the body designated by Charter
to set rates for electricity in the City and in doing that, the Board
must look at the Budget to determine costs etc.; fees for electrical
permits is also a source of revenue and if the Board is charged to
present rates, they need to also have the responsibility for proposing
permit fees.
President Withrow clarified Council has set the fees in the past.
Councilman Arnerich inquired what is the reason .for changing the
procedure; and the City Manager replied Council adopted fees because
it adopted the Code and the fees were part of the Code; at this point
it is suggested the PUB adopt the fees in conjunction with their
budget; they cannot do the budget without the ability to do the rates
on utility bills and permit fees, the two main sources of revenue.
Mr. Degemann stated he opposes [the procedure], because the PUB is not
July 16, 1991
206
accountable to the people, but Council is.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if there is a limit as to the increa:,
that can be levied, and the City Manager replied if the ordinance is
approved, the PUB may use its discretion.
President Withrow stated that Council is accountable to the people and
he considers the PUB to be accountable to Council.
Mr. Degemann stated his objection is that when the City needed funds
from the Bureau, obtaining the funds was difficult; when fees are
raised, if people are upset, Council can step in; once the power to
control is given away, it is gone.
Councilmember Lucas stated she supports President Withrow's position
that the PUB and Bureau of Electricity (B of E) are accountable to
Council; shares Mr. Degemann's concern that they have not been as
responsive as Council would have liked; would like to see budget
concerns by B of E; regarding permit fees, Bureau inspectors do the
work, should know time involved and fees to charge; if charge is
unrelated to work involved, Council could take steps to remedy that.
President Withrow stated an ordinance approved by Council can be
changed, therefore, if complaints occur in implementation, a change
can be made.
Councilmember Roth stated Council appoints the Board, and Boa:
Members can be changed if they do not respond to the will of t
people.
Councilman Arnerich stated there is no doubt of integrity of the Board
but minutes of the last Board meeting leave a grey area as to whom the
Board believes they are accountable; he would not like to relinquish
too much control because getting control back might be difficult.
President Withrow stated retaking control would not be difficult
because if Council creates [adopts) the ordinance, Council can cancel
and recreate another ordinance that does not include giving authority.
Councilman Arnerich inquired what, prompted the change and who
initiated the change in procedure; and the City Manager stated the
procedure was a way to streamline; and he believed discussions
between the City Attorney and the Bureau, while drafting the
ordinance, brought about the change; he believes a duplication of
effort was perceived.
General Manager, Bureau of Electricity, stated revenues from fees
account for about 75% of the cost, total amount of cost is not
recovered; in reviewing fees recommended to the PUB recently, a
comparison was made in surrounding communities and the Bureau's fees
were lower than in most of the communities; the fees have not change
in two years; two recommendations had been previously prepared fc
Council, one to approve rates and one to approve changes in the Code-
the B of E and PUB will be happy to do whatever Council would like.
Further discussion ensued regarding the initiation of the procedure.
July 16, 1991
President Withrow clarified the General Manager, B of E, indicated he
has no preference [who sets the fees].
Councilman Arnerich stated he does not understand why the request was
made by the Bureau to change [procedure] because Council has been
[setting fees] for many years.
The General Manager replied the Bureau has no preference, submitted to
the City in the form of two proposals, one for rates, one for change
of Code, have agendized the matter for next Monday's PUB meeting to
reapprove the rates since what they did the first time was recommend
them to Council for approval; so the Board has formally recommended
to Council the changes in the Code and changes in rates; if Council
likes that, that is fine with the PUB; the PUB has no desire to set
the fees for service, however, the Board would like to share with
Council what the service costs so that the fees partially recover the
costs of the work.
Councilmember Roth stated, in essence, the PUB does set the fees
because it makes recommendation to Council, and Council approves or
does not; so PUB and Council both vote; and the General Manager
affirmed that is correct.
Councilmember Roth inquired why Park and Webster Streets come under
special rules and regulations.
The General Manager stated the reason is because buildings were
constructed so close together, and the wiring is hazardous if not in
conduit, and called upon the Electrical Inspector.
The Electrical Inspector [George Carder] stated new buildings on Park
and Webster Streets are not subject to the rules because the
construction is suitable for current fire standards; older buildings
in other areas are not subject to such close proximity; and further
discussed wiring methods.
To Councilman Arnerich's question regarding updating the ordinance,
the Electrical Inspector replied some changes could be made but the
situation is not critical and applies only to a couple of wiring
methods.
Councilmember Camicia questioned if the schedule of fees is based on
100% recovery of costs, to which the General Manager stated no
overhead or supervision costs were included, and the fees come close
to recovering the out-of-pocket costs; adding overhead would result
in approximately 75% recovery.
The Fire Chief stated with the advent of a number of modern Codes in
late 1950s and 1960s, the fire service worked toward creating fire
zones where more extreme hazards existed, generally where more than a
block could be expected to be lost in a fire, usually occurring in
older business districts with blocks of buildings wall to wall, built
under old Codes; therefore the Fire Department, in the fifties and
sixties, recommended implementation of fire zones and Fire Zone I,
most hazardous, were the principal older business districts, Park and
July 16, 1991
200
Webster Streets, where fire hazard for a conflagration still exist
he further detailed the hazard involved, adding Councilmember Re
makes a good point that some other areas are close to the sa
situation.
Councilmember Lucas moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Roth seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich stated he is uneasy about the matter; Mr.
Degemann raised questions he [Arnerich] would like answered in more
detail; does not believe the need to pass the matter is pressing;
and would like it held over for more definitive answers.
The City Manager noted the General Manager should respond to the
possibility of holding the matter over to be sure no problem exists.
The General Manager stated there is a time urgency; was told the
matter must be undertaken in July or changes to the Code could not be
adopted; the matter was sent over in May to be on agenda in June but
delays occurred.
The City Attorney stated two items are before Council, the fees and
the Code; Council has not indicated any problem with the Code;
Council could hold over Section Items 1 and 2 on the fees, and adopt
the remainder of the ordinance.
The City Manager clarified the State adopts various Codes and mandat
cities and other jurisdictions adopt within a certain period of time
The General Manager urged Council approve the Code and decide at
leisure regarding the rates.
Councilmember Camicia stated the General Manager has indicated cost
coverage by the fees and as long as the fees are not at 100% or over,
he [Camicia] is happy; Council could pass fees, then go back and
explore the range of other issues not understood.
Councilmember Lucas stated she does not see what is wrong with
adopting the most recent Code; if there is new construction in the
City, she would prefer to have it done by the latest Code, and sees no
reason to hold off.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Camicia, Lucas, Roth and President Withrow - 4. Noes: Councilman
Arnerich - 1. Absent: None.
91-512 Report from City Manager regarding Appointments to Boards,
Commissions, and Committees.
Councilmember Roth stated he requested the matter be put on the agenda
for discussion; one concern is that appointments come due at one tim-
and he would like to work toward staggered appointments rather than
many in in one month; the length of terms, consistency, rules to app
when Councilmembers have made appointments which a new Councilmembe_
must replace, are also his concerns.
July 16, 1991
20J
President Withrow noted those are valid concerns; he has found the
process to be very serious and important for the Mayor to pursue and
many appointments due at the same time result in abnormal impact; and
inquired of the City Attorney if an encumbent can be requested to
continue on a Committee, Commission or Board until such time a
nomination has been placed before the Council.
The City Attorney stated three categories exist, Charter Boards,
non-Charter Boards, and Committees; for non-Charter Boards and
Committees, the only thing that governs is the enabling ordinance and
basically, with those, Council may do what it wishes; for Charter
Boards, the City Attorney quoted from Section 10-4.1 which states the
Council shall appoint between May 1st and July 1st, members as
necessary to maintain a full Board for terms commencing on the first
day of July; and replied in the affirmative to President Withrow's
inquiry above.
Councilman Arnerich stated technically, according to the Charter,
appointments must be made between May 1 and July 1.
The City Manager stated that applies to the six Charter Boards only.
The City Attorney agreed.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if Council was in violation of the
Charter by making appointments on July 2nd.
The City Attorney stated Council was not, because the sentence in the
Charter [Section 10-4.1] previously quoted, regarding continuing for
four years and thereafter, includes "until a successor has been
appointed;" the period between May 1 and July 1 is to be considered as
a goal, in essence; continual City practice last year and years
before has been to make the appointments approximately in July; and
the City Clerk could clarify that.
The City Clerk stated that is correct.
Councilman Arnerich stated he is being told the Charter is
meaningless, because it states appointments must be made between May 1
and July 1.
The City Clerk clarified she does not believe the Charter is
meaningless; it is a guide to the Mayor and Council, however, very
frequently in the past, when the Mayor has had to review numerous, or
acquire, applications, he had the opportunity to exceed the June 30th
date by the allowance in the Charter which states "until a successor
has been qualified;" the appointee continues serving beyond his/her
June 30th expiration date until a successor has been appointed.
Councilman Arnerich reiterated that the Charter states the appointment
must be made between May 1 to July 1, and he does not see any
exception unless someone moves or dies at which time the Mayor can
make a reappointment, so he is trying to be detailed to say
technically that Council is in violation; believes Council should
stay with what is written in the Charter and the only way there can be
a change is to have the people vote for a Charter change.
July 16, 1991
2
Councilmember Roth stated he is not looking for a Charter change.
President Withrow stated since Charter Board terms begin on July 1,
would make sense to have other groups on other dates.
Councilman Arnerich stated he would not have a problem with that; and
inquired if a closing date could be streamlined, and perhaps staff
could look at possibly a week for review.
President Withrow stated ten days should be allowed, so there can be
three days to process and distribute to Council.
Councilmember Roth inquired about the length of the terms of the
Airport Operations Committee Members.
President Withrow stated he has been informing persons who inquire,
that the terms have been made indefinitely; there is no charter or
charge because of the timeline; and noted the procedure is not the
appropriate way for most committees to be established.
The City Manager stated, if the Council wishes, the next step would
be for staff to return with by-laws, terms of members, and times for
election.
Councilmember Roth inquired if there should be an established polic-
so that all are the same.
The City Manager suggested staff bring back items Council wam
changed for non-Charter Boards e.g., terms to come up at different
times, setting a period of time during which nominations can come in;
and have that adopted as Council policy.
The City Manager commented the Airport Operations Committee will come
on Agenda and Council can give direction on the Committee structure.
Councilmember Roth stated another concern is replacement of a Member,
appointed by a previous Councilmember, when a replacement is due; and
there should be a policy addressing that situation.
President Withrow agreed, and stated there should be something to
indicate succession.
Councilmember Camicia suggested appointments be made concurrent with
the term of the Councilmember.
Councilmember Lucas agreed.
Councilmember Roth stated that should be made a part of the policy.
Councilmember Lucas commented, with respect to the Port Authority
subcommittee appointees, there would be only two appointments fc.
Councilmembers, and a question of who would make those appointments.
Councilman Arnerich stated staff could look at that and report back to
Council on all the areas discussed by Council.
July 16, 1991
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report. Councilmember
Roth seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-513 Report from City Manager concerning the formation of a Naval
Air Station Alameda, Base Retention Committee.
Bonny Moore, Alameda, thanked the Mayor for support of the Naval Air
Station; suggested Committee be composed of Alameda residents only;
and that a survey be passed out to individuals at the Naval Aviation
Depot to gather data from those receiving notice, on how long persons
were unemployed, demands made on social services, etc., for return to
the City after about three months, to provide data concerning impact.
President Withrow stated he believes there should be a Naval Air
Station Committee, not unlike an Airport Operations Committee;
indications are that a base closure process will occur every other
year for ten years; many items must be looked at, e.g., retention,
workload, impact on individuals, interrelationship with other cities
with like problem; ownership of base property; by uniting with other
cities, Alameda would have more power and influence in Washington,
D.C.; he has agreed to work on two resolutions for the Council of
Mayors which meet in January, to obtain Congressional action for
support; also, strategic planning with respect to the Base in terms
of conversion, and he would propose a Committee that encompasses all
of the issues relating to City's relations with the Naval Air Station.
Councilmember Camicia observed President Withrow is talking about a
much larger Committee.
President Withrow clarified he is discussing a much larger Committee
and a more extensive role; possibly the Committee could be like a
County committee which has fifteen members and three subcommittees,
and basic investigation and evaluation of alternatives, and options
occur in subcommittees; the Committee as a whole is present to
provide continuity between the three; Council could put together a
Committee of fifteen consisting of three five-person committees.
Councilmember Camicia suggested a Committee of thirteen, two of which
are appointed by each Councilmember and the remainder by the Mayor.
Councilman Arnerich stated he would hope that those who are appointed
to the Base Committee would not already be serving on any other
Committee, Board or Commission or Ad Hoc Committee; likes the idea
that has been presented; wonders if money could be found for
lobbyist.
President Withrow stated part of his reason for feeling strongly the
need of getting the Committee started is because Federal money is
available for strategic planning for military base conversion; he
would doubt a lobbyist would be covered; he has already established
contact with the President's Office of Economic Adjustment.
Councilmember Roth stated three basic areas are being considered for
work, so there should be three committees of five, and each
Councilmember could appoint three.
July 16, 1991
212
Councilmember Camicia indicated he had no problem with that.
President Withrow stated that was fine with him, and entertained
motion.
Councilmember Roth so moved.
Councilmember Camicia clarified the motion is probably to have another
report come back to Council that would stipulate a fifteen-member
Committee composed of three (3) five-member subcommittees, and what
those sub-committees would do, incorporating some of the items
discussed, e.g., length of terms, staggering of terms, associated with
the term of office of the Councilmembers.
Councilman Arnerich moved the recommendation for a Committee of
fifteen, three sub-committees of five, seeking funding sources for
those sub-committees and lobbyist.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and suggested joining with
the County for a lobbyist.
Councilmember Roth stated the Committee could do that.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-514 Report from Planning Director regarding ABAG questionnais
concerning Means of Implementing Regional Growth Manageme:
Objectives.
President Withrow thanked Vice-Mayor Lucas for putting this matter
before the Council; stated in forums he has attended, regional
government is exceedingly unpopular; addressed the possibility of
regional government being achieved and the Governor's recent movement
toward indicating a need for some form of formalized coordination
regionally; he [Withrow] is opposed to any additional layer of
government with no pre-defined indication of benefit; noted the
document Bay Vision 20/20 has developed, the regional government
proposal for this area, indicates a strong movement towards
governance; the same persons arguing for regional government are
arguing for substantially increasing the density of our urban areas;
and further stated that super-imposing a body on an area that takes up
land-use decisions and virtually every facet of our life-style, to
him, is not acceptable, and should be fought in a tenacious and
aggressive manner.
Councilmember Lucas stated she asked for this to be put on the agenda;
July 22 is the deadline to submit answers, she wants Council's input
for the answers; and inquired how the Planning Director proposes to
submit answers by that date.
The Planning Director stated he attempted to answer the questionnais
from the perspective in the recommendation, however, in many questio:
a critical issue exists that is not defined; some definitive answers
can be given; he is not sure a question-by-question answer to the
questionnaire is the appropriate response.
July 16, 1991
213
Councilmember Lucas stated if Council wishes to be considered and have
input to the regional government, Council should reply; believes all
of Council believes transportation is a regional issue; environmental
quality is a regional issue, air quality cannot be determined by
activities in Alameda alone.
President Withrow stated air quality leads where he believes the
Planning Director was talking about unstated issues; Council's
concern can be stated but to what degree would tradeoffs be accepted
that would encroach upon Alameda.
Councilmember Lucas stated the regional area includes nine counties
with 106 cities, Alameda is probably in the top ten as to density,
probably regional government can impose less on Alameda than other
cities and Alameda might have some benefit.
President Withrow stated that is a point well-taken; believes Council
has taken a position in the past that it supports regional control
governance over transportation.
Councilmember Roth stated Councilmember Lucas indicated Alameda may
not be told to be more dense, but he anticipates the regional
government may ask for a certain percentage from all cities; he sees
regional government as another level of bureaucracy; and it wants
taxing powers.
President Withrow noted advocates of regional government refer to
"fiscalization of property" where everything goes into a pot; those in
power determine where it goes, ignoring where it comes from.
Councilmember Lucas stated a strong position should be taken where the
City can benefit, and in opposition where the City may be hurt.
Councilmember Roth stated the questionnaire is not a straightforward
survey.
Councilmember Lucas stated staff has an opportunity to answer; and
she would like Council's input for her answer on behalf of Council.
President Withrow stated he would like the staff and Council to be in
sync.
Councilmember Camicia stated he too was uncomfortable with the
questionnaire; believes Council should respond; concerning
transportation, regional government makes sense; however, he would
like to get points across not addressed in the questionnaire; would
like a letter stating transportation, air quality are good ideas, and
if there is to be a regional government, then perhaps a look should be
taken at County government which is laying people off, and what sense
does it make to start another layer of government; that is a point
Council should make and it cannot be done in the questionnaire.
President Withrow stated his input to the Vice-Mayor is that, from a
constructive standpoint, Council can vote, but he believes a
constructive position should be taken that speaks from where Council
July 16, 1991
wants to speak, as opposed to responding to what has been asked; a-
he believes believes both things can be done.
Councilmember Lucas stated she likes Councilmember Camicia's idea,
believes input would be valuable but answers to questionnaire will be
added up after July 22 and would like Council's vote included; noted
if some issues in questionnaire can be answered with a yes or no, she
would appreciate that.
Councilman Arnerich suggested Council take the questionnaire and get
back to Councilmember Lucas by July 22nd.
President Withrow stated he would like Councilmember Lucas, while in
the forum, to submit that at least one member of the Council has a
concern with jobs housing balance; the philosophy is that if the
number of jobs in a city equal the number of residents, transportation
needs will be cut down; however people who live in Alameda do not
work in Alameda and vice versa and that appears to be true around the
Bay Area; also statistics indicate people change jobs 5 times every
12 years, and move often; he does not agree with the concept which
comes from the Bay Area Council.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report. Councilmember
Lucas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Councilman Roth inquired what the motion is, and Councilman Arneri'
stated the motion is to accept the recommendation of the report.
President Withrow clarified the report is for information only.
Councilman Arnerich stated the motion is also with the proviso that
Councilmembers provide the Vice-Mayor with the necessary information
in ample time for the meeting of July 22nd. Councilmember Camicia
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Roth stated the recommendation includes that staff is to
fill out the report.
Councilman Arnerich modified his motion, stating that the word "staff"
be deleted in the recommendation; Council is to prepare the
questionnaire or express comments in writing and provide same to the
Vice-Mayor in ample time for her report July 22nd. Councilmember
Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote
5.
91-515 Report from Planning Director concerning a one-year review of
Use Permit, UP-89-21, and Variance, V-89-9, which authorized the
establishment of an attorney's office within a R-5, General
Residential District, at 2156 Central Avenue. Applicant: William L.
Berg.
Councilmember Roth inquired if Mr. Berg was requesting use in tl
evenings.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if this matter should be referred to the
July 16, 1991
Planning Board.
President Withrow stated the report is informational.
The City Manager clarified Council requested a year ago that the
report come back before Council.
Councilman Arnerich addressed Mr. Berg's request referred to in the
report.
President Withrow clarified this is not before the Council for action,
it is an informational report only.
Mr. Berg stated he would like to explain why he made the request.
President Withrow inquired if the remarks would be legal.
The City Attorney replied as long as it is understood the remarks are
merely for amplification of an item in the report; because [the
request] was in the report, it is within Council's scope to listen but
no action can be taken because that is within the jurisdiction of the
Planning Board.
Mr. Berg stated he wanted to clarify the matter because Councilman
Arnerich specifically inquired; the Appeal was heard about 13 months
ago; that evening, Council approved his Use Permit and after the
Public Hearing was closed, Council proposed the condition that he have
no evening or weekend appointments; Planning staff had not
recommended, nor had he been asked about that; Council, later that
evening, approved a permit for an office across the street from him
without such condition, and during the year approved two permits to
convert residences to medical offices without imposing the condition;
he does not do or plan to do many weekend or evening appointments but
wants freedom to do so if necessary, and to be treated like others.
Councilmember Lucas noted a Planning Board subcommittee is looking
into professional office use in residential districts, their
recommendation is to permit it; and inquired if a Use Permit would
still be required; and the Planning Director replied the Permit would
be required.
Councilmember Lucas inquired concerning consistency in office hours
permitted, as the restriction for Mr. Berg is unusual.
The Planning Director replied part of the purpose is to make the
process more equitable; each case has been considered on its own
merits and discrepancy has occurred; the intent is to develop some
consistency among the types of uses.
Councilmember Lucas inquired if Planning Board decides to have
consistent Use Permits, would Mr. Berg benefit automatically; the
Planning Director replied some retroactive procedure might be set up
but [automatic benefit] would not appear to be feasible or possible.
The City Attorney stated the issue would probably be the fee for
amendment and Council could establish a fee waiver to provide for
July 16, 1991
216
amendments to Use Permits to accomplish those goals, but it is corre-
that going back retroactively and unilaterally imposing conditic
cannot be done, unless through the public process, but that would ,
burdensome.
At the request of Councilmember Roth, the City Attorney reviewed the
Berg matter, what procedure could be followed, and what action could
or could not be taken.
The City Attorney inquired if Council is desirous of having the Use
Permit reviewed without having Mr. Berg pay the $300 filing fee.
Councilmember Roth stated he is.
The City Attorney stated that option could be explored.
President Withrow stated that is valid; a substantial brouhaha took
place when Mr. Berg's matter was considered, which had nothing to do
with Mr. Berg but with inconsistency in applying policy; that is one
reason for having the Planning Board subcommittee produce a policy;
and he agrees a review should be allowed without the $300 fee.
Councilmember Lucas stated the Planning Board subcommittee
recommendation has recently been made, policy is not yet established,
and perhaps Council is premature.
Councilmember Roth stated the matter could be referred and n
necessarily done immediately.
President Withrow inquired when the policy will come before Council,
to which the Planning Director replied within about two months.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report, accept the
recommendation Council investigate a process for waiving the fee and
see if that can be done after the report [regarding policy] comes in.
President Withrow seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if it is appropriate to proceed in that
manner.
The City Attorney replied affirmatively and noted she will take the
action and review the procedure to see if there is a way to agendize
as some type of review without payment of the fee; and she will take
steps to implement that.
The City Attorney confirmed that is part of the motion.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-516 Report from Finance Director transmitting City of Alameda
Investment Policy and Guidelines for 1991-92, as prepared by City
Treasurer.
Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation. Councilmember Rot,
seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
July 16, 1991
2
91-517 Report from Personnel Director regarding the adoption of a
policy prohibiting harassment and discrimination.
Councilmember Roth moved acceptance. Councilmember Camicia seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-518 Report from Personnel Director regarding the adoption of a
Bilingual Pay Incentive Program.
Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated he has a problem with the Program;
a recession is taking place, the City is short of money, a second
language should be part of the hiring requirement, not financially
rewarded.
The. Personnel Director noted the policy is a Council-proposed policy
preliminarily adopted, then negotiated with all the bargaining units,
and now brought back for final adoption; the purpose is to allow
departments to identify certain key positions which deal extensively
with foreign language ability; and has been viewed as a recruiting
tool for public safety in public relations as well as enforcement.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if a person does not use bilingual
ability for a year, what is the basis for payment; and the Personnel
Director replied certain positions are designated as having
significant usage of a language and are paid on ongoing basis, but
other usage is paid for on a one-time basis.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance. Councilmember Lucas seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
NEW BUSINESS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
91-519 Consideration of a nomination for appointment to the Civil
Service Board.
President Withrow renominated Vicki Lane, noting she had been
nominated previously and nomination withdrawn due to checked box on
application regarding a background check [See Minutes Paragraph
91-475, July 2, 1991, Council Meeting]; and noted Ms. Lane had
written to all of Council that the [objection] box was checked in
error, she is highly qualified for the position and he recommends her.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the nomination which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-520 Councilmember Camicia suggested the Building and Planning
Departments schedule a meeting with homeowners' associations and
architectural review board representatives to discuss home addition
issues as it would help the communication process.
91-521 Councilmember Camicia suggested a fast-track-approval procedure
for simple room additions.
91-522 Councilmember Camicia complimented staff on the small planted
area near Bay Farm Island bridge.
July 16, 1991
21S
91-523 Councilmember Camicia requested information, off agenda, on ti
Bureau of Electricity's travel expenses this fiscal year, a
justification for $123,000 travel budget for next fiscal year.
91-524 Councilman Arnerich expressed concern regarding the absenteeism
of certain board/commission/committee members; President Withrow
suggested staff send letters to members and inquire whether they
desire to continue to serve. Councilman Arnerich agreed and stated if
persons are not attending, they should be replaced.
91-525 Councilman Arnerich expressed concern regarding blighted areas
such as the Central Market site, and requested a report within 30 to
45 days on City enforcement measures.
ADJOURNMENT
President Withrow adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance.
July 16, 1991