1990-06-19 Regular CC Minutes189
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
JUNE 19, 1990
The meeting convened at 7 :36 p.m. with Acting President Arnerich
presiding. Councilmember Withrow led the pledge to the flag. The
invocation was given by Reverend Doug Henderson.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Camicia, Thomas, Withrow,
and Acting President Arnerich - 4.
Absent: Mayor Corica - 1.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S)
Vice -Mayor Arnerich announced that prior to the regular meeting,
the following action was taken:
Council adjourned to Closed Session to discuss:
90 -416 Golden Gate Audubon Society v. City of Alameda, pursuant to
Subsection (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: Council
discussed the status of the case.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Acting President Arnerich announced a request from the public to
remove (90 -441), report authorizing increase in contract for Park
Street Parking Structure Conceptual Plan, from the Consent Calendar
to the regular agenda; and further requested (90 -440), report
authorizing funds for Ferry Coordinator position, and (90 -443),
resolution regarding study of the proposed Southern Crossing, be
removed from the Consent Calendar to the regular agenda.
Councilmember Thomas registered a No vote on ( *90 -433) Bills.
Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*90 -417 From City Clerk recommending award of contract to Alameda
Times Star for legal advertising for Fiscal Year 1990 -1991.
Accepted.
*90 -418 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of work
by St. Francis Electric for traffic signalization and other
improvements at Sherman Street and Buena Vista Avenue, Assessment
District 84 -3, No. P.W. 12- 88 -22. Accepted.
*90 -419 From Public Works Director recommending
and specifications and calling for bids for
repair at various locations, No. P.W. 3 -90 -5.
*90 -420 From Public Works Director recommending
improvements and release of bond for Tract 6000
adoption of plans
earthquake damage
Accepted.
acceptance of the
(Southeast Corner
June 19, 1990
190
of Chestnut Street and Lincoln Avenue). Accepted.
*90 -421 From Public Works Director recommending adoption of plans
and specifications and calling for bids for the repair of Portland
Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, and Driveway for the Fiscal
Year ending June 30, 1991, No. P.W. 5 -90 -7. Accepted.
*90 -422 From Public Works Director regarding status of City
Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Policy and adoption of City
Employee Program. Accepted.
*90 -423 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending adoption of
plans and specifications, and calling for bids, for construction of
Bridge View Park. Accepted.
*90 -424 From Community Development Director regarding Fiscal Year
1990 -91 CDBG Grant Agreements. Accepted.
*90 -425 From Finance Director submitting Investment, Report for
period ending May 31, 1990. Accepted.
*90 -426 From Community Development Director regarding economic
restructuring of commercial /retail mix in Historic Business
Districts (for information only). Accepted.
RESOLUTIONS
*90 -427 Resolution No. 11971 "Approving application for
State -Local Partnership Program and authorizing matching funds for
resurfacing various streets for Fiscal Year 1991 -92." Adopted.
*90 -428 Resolution No. 11972 "Preliminarily approving Annual
Report declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and providing for Notice of Hearing thereof, Island
City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2." Adopted.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE
*90 -429 Ordinance No. 2488, N.S. }°Amending Alameda Municipal Code
to prohibit parking at various times and locations to facilitate
street sweeping." Adopted.
*90 -430 Ordinance No. 2489, N.S. "Amending Alameda Municipal Code
by adding Article 8, Chapter 3, Title II thereof, establishing an
Economic Development Commission and prescribing membership and
duties of said Commission." Adopted.
*90 -431 Ordinance No. 24901 N.S. "Repeal of Section 17 -353, Title
XVII, of the Alameda Municipal Code, prohibiting recreational
vehicles from parking longer than 72 hours on public streets."
Adopted.
*90 -432 Ordinance No. 2491` N.S. "Amending Alameda Municipal
Code, Article 7, Title XVII, public off - street parking lots,
Sections 17 -372, 17 -373, 17 -374, and 17- 375." Adopted.
June 19, 1990
191
BILLS
90 -433 A List of Claims certified by the City Manager as correct,
was ratified in the sum of $2,358,931.53. [One No vote:
Councilmember Thomas]
MINUTES
Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the minutes of the
Adjourned Regular Council Meeting of June 7, 1990, and Special
Council Meeting of June 4, 1990. Councilmember Withrow seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
HEARINGS
90 -434 Consideration of establishing Appropriation Limit for Fiscal
Year 1990 -91, pursuant to Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the
State of California.
Acting President Arnerich explained the procedure of the hearing.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
On the call for proponents, there were none.
On the call for opponents, there were none.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Camicia moved to take the related resolution out of
order. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried
by unanimous voice vote - 4.
90 -435 Resolution No. 11973. "Establishing Appropriation Limit
for Fiscal Year 1990 -91." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Withrow
seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
90 -436 Consideration of a Master Fee Resolution.
Acting President Arnerich explained the procedure of the hearing.
The City Manager reviewed the background of the matter, noting the
matter is before Council for discussion only, and a related
resolution will be agendized.
Acting President Arnerich questioned if everyone will have an
opportunity to receive the information regarding the new fee
structures; and the City Manager replied the required information
has been published, members of the community have been notified and
special notification can be made before the next meeting, if
Council desires.
June 19, 1990
192
The Finance Director stated there have been mailings of the
proposed Master Fee resolution to homeowners' associations, as well
as Alameda business associations.
Councilmember Withrow expressed concern regarding fees being
charged for false alarm responses and requested information on what
constitutes a false alarm that would trigger the proposed fees.
The Acting Chief of Police replied the false alarm is basically a
response for a malfunction due to faulty equipment; and described
the procedure for determination of a malfunction.
Councilmember Withrow commented the penalties could inhibit the
installation of alarm systems because of a $250 fine if the alarm
goes off, and he has reservations about the penalties.
The City Manager noted no penalty is charged until the third false
alarm when a $50 penalty is charged; the $250 amount is not
charged until the seventh false alarm; and further commented the
program can be brought back to Council before finalization.
Acting President Arnerich agreed with Councilmember Withrow's
concern and discussed notification of impending penalty; the
Acting Chief of Police stated there would be written notification,
and noted the program is used in a number of cities.
Councilmember Camicia suggested increasing fees for massage parlor
permits; and the possibility of discouraging some of the less
legitimate permittees, to which the Acting Chief of Police replied
the matter could be reviewed; and noted all massage permits are
the subject of fairly extensive background investigation by the
vice and intelligence unit.
Councilmember Withrow stated there is a social benefit in some of
the Recreation and Parks programs in addition to a direct benefit
to individuals, e.g., swimming lessons, and he believes swimming
lessons could be free, to encourage children and adults to become
"water- safe;" and concerning life- saving and water - safety classes,
it should be a City goal to promote that type of education, as
opposed to trying to recover investments.
Acting President Arnerich stated the City contributes to the cost;
agrees fees should be reviewed because it is a considerable sum
particularly for families with three or four children for the
summer, and noted the Recreation Commission will be reviewing the
fees next year, as the fees noted were implemented January 1, 1990.
The City Manager stated the Recreation Commission will review fees
in February, 1991, after which, the Recreation and Park fees will
be submitted to Council.
Councilmember Thomas stated, more significant than Police or
Recreation charges within the user fees are some Planning charges;
believes these are significant increases and people should be aware
of them now; requested newspapers highlight some significant
increases to give people an opportunity to comment before the
June 19, 1990
193
increases take place.
Councilmember Withrow inquired if there is a document that
addresses the figures in order of magnitude, and is accompanied by
the philosophy behind recovery levels, e. g. Planning Department
fees.
The City Manager stated recovery levels were considered.
The Finance Director noted there should be a typographical
correction [in the Finance Director's staff report] regarding the
City Clerk's fees: "City Council Schedule of Meetings" should be
stricken, as no such fees are levied.
The Finance Director reviewed the background of the study of the
cost allocation user fee study, the executive summary noting the
proposed recovery level; noted the target for the Planning
Department was 80% recovery, but that was too much of an increase
so 60% is being looked at for this year and will look to further
increases in following years; described further criteria, and
noted there is a survey available for inspection, of charges in
neighboring jurisdictions.
Councilmember Camicia suggested backing off, initially, on 80% cost
recovery for Variances, Use Permits, and minor design review, as he
believes that will make a difference to people who are trying to
improve their property.
Acting President Arnerich stated some proposed Planning Department
increases as noted by Councilmember Thomas, would be devastating to
some persons and he believes there would need to be a lot of
justification for that; and the administrative overhead charges
must be looked at very carefully.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, stated the public should
have more comprehensive information, and when the rates are raised,
they should not be marked up to a point where no one can pay them,
people should have an opportunity to progressively move into fees.
Diane Coler -Dark, 2847 Jackson Street, stated some fee increases
are necessary but some impact small businesses; there are some
loan and grant programs and some increases will be a deterrent;
e.g., a minor design review raised from $25 to $300 for awnings and
facade improvements, will cut into available project funds; and
requested Council re- examine, in concurrence with Councilmember
Camicia's comments, some of the fee increases, particularly as they
impact the facade loan and grant improvements.
Gary Thomas, Member, Finance Committee, stated the Committee had
workshops and meetings on the subject and forwarded recommendations
to the Council, which noted there are a lot of hidden items and the
Committee recommends Council not take a blanket approach but look
at items in detail; perhaps some fees are not bad if it is noted
what is being supported on behalf of the City; and stated the
other item the Committee considered is level of service; if the
fees are raised, will the service be faster; the level of
June 19, 1990
194
expectation of service should be looked at closely in terms of fees
being raised.
[The Finance Committee report dated June 18, 1990, expressed
support for the concept of the Cost Allocation /User Fees.]
Councilmember Withrow moved to continue the Master Fee Resolution
[matter]; stated he would like to ensure that each of the
Homeowners' Associations receive the information; and he would
like to see the newspapers write it up and if there is no reaction,
then Council could feel more comfortable taking action on it; and
requested the matter come back on the second meeting of July.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion.
Acting President Arnerich stated in addition, the business
districts, and contractors should be notified.
Council, by consensus, encouraged dissemination of Master Fee
Resolution information to homeowners' associations, business
districts, trade unions, Association of General Contractors; and
requested newspapers to widely publicize.
Acting President Arnerich clarified the motion was to delay the
matter to July 17, 1990, Council Meeting. The motion was carried
by unanimous voice vote - 4.
APPEALS
90 -437 Consideration of Appeal of Planning Board decision to
approve Negative Declaration (15- 90 -2); Use Permit, UP-90-8, to
permit the construction of commercial ferry terminal dock
facilities in the Open Space District; Use Permit, UP -90 -7, to
permit the construction of a parking lot associated with the
proposed ferry terminal in a R -1 Single - Family Residence District;
and Final Development Plan, FDP -90 -1, to permit the development of
a ferry terminal facility within the Harbor Bay Isle Development.
The site is located at the west end of Mecartney Road on the
western shoreline of the Bay Farm Island peninsula. Applicant:
Doric Development, Inc. Appellant: Golden Gate Audubon Society.
Ann Lyons, 1736 Franklin Street, Oakland, Attorney for Appellant,
requested the Appeal be continued to July 3rd Council Meeting,
because in the Appeal letter, six items were listed with which
Appellant took issue regarding approval of the Negative Declaration
by the Planning Board; stated there has been extensive discussion
with Applicant's attorney, resolution of four issues has been
reached, and she is confident the remaining two issues can be
worked out; and Appellant would like the opportunity to do so;
does not believe the delay would be significant.
Leora Feeney, 1330 8th Street, stated she is representing Golden
Gate Audubon Society; Appellant and Applicant have been meeting to
negotiate agreeable mitigations to accompany Negative Declaration;
hopes decision on this matter can be postponed until both parties
have formalized an agreement over the mitigations; the issues
June 19, 1990
195
currently outstanding are 1) the baseline study of organisms
occupying the eel grass beds and 2) monitoring for the organisms;
and there are also concerns about definition of "significant
adverse impacts," with respect to what is, or is not, significant.
Ms. Feeney further stated there has been a verbal agreement in
discussions with Doric Development that the storm drain design will
produce an indirect flow of street and parking lot run-off
indirectly into the bay, and she would like to see that concept in
writing; they are willing to forego further turbidity tests at
this time, unless adverse impacts indicate a need for them in the
future; believes that monitoring the vessel by the captain keeping
a daily log and by having one radar check per month done randomly
is appropriate, but would like to know if there would be any
consequence to a ship's captain if found to be exceeding the speed
limit; believes there should be a deterrent penalty; she has been
conducting least tern foraging operations, will assess the findings
at a later time but is increasingly convinced that persistence with
this issue is warranted.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated he is in favor of
giving Harbor Bay the ferry system; believes Alameda has been
delaying Harbor Bay Isle long enough; and would like to know how
many bicycle parking spaces there will be.
Stephen Brimhall, Executive Vice - President, Doric Development, 1141
Harbor Bay Parkway, representing Applicant, requested Council take
action on the matter; stated Doric has worked for 15 months [on
the issue], spent over $100,000 endeavoring to comply, and bringing
in experts to provide solutions; the experts have advised Doric
that there are adequate mitigation measures in place to assure
Audubon's concerns; if the ferry service has an impact it can be
discovered through the monitoring proposal and the City has the
power to modify the service or ultimately, shut it down if there is
an impact; explained reasons why each day of delay is costly for
Doric; an Appeal is "on the record," the record will not change in
two weeks; Ms. Feeney stated the matter is close to settlement;
he instructed Doric's attorneys to approach Appellant over two
months ago to work out a solution and believes there has been
adequate time to reach a settlement; this matter is in litigation
and has not yet been settled, if the City Council denies the
Appeal, there is still an opportunity for Doric to sit down with
Audubon Society to see if there is a way to come to grips with the
issue; Doric's major concern is that there not be an opportunity
to stop the service once it is in effect, unless it is in fact
causing an environmental problem.
To Acting President Arnerich's question regarding a target date,
Mr. Brimhall responded the target date is January 1, 1991.
Councilmember Withrow inquired of staff if negotiations would
continue between the Appellant and Applicant irrespective of
Council's action tonight; and the City Attorney replied the
lawsuit and the litigation is still outstanding and there still
would be opportunities to review these issues and to discuss
further additional modifications or mitigation measures.
June 19, 1990
Councilmember Withrow clarified his understanding of the City
Attorney's opinion is that there is still a reason for motivation
to move toward a negotiated settlement.
The City Attorney responded that is correct; there is still
outstanding litigation on the first Negative Declaration and a
possibility of litigation on the action that the Council will take.
Councilmember Withrow requested clarification that, if a
satisfactory settlement is not reached by Applicant and Appellant,
the Audubon Society would have a viable recourse, to which the City
Attorney replied the Audubon Society would have the option to file
an additional petition for a writ, or to amend their original
lawsuit to address the Council's action tonight, and further action
in the Court could be pursued.
Councilmember Camicia stated Council must basically decide whether
or not the Planning Board made a mistake and he does not see how
that would be affected in two weeks; Council can vote on this
matter tonight or postpone, and both sides can continue to
negotiate, it does not affect Council's decision; and no one has
convinced him there is a need to postpone.
Councilmember Thomas stated the proposed Negative Declaration was
not included [in the Staff Report, dated June 13, 1990]; believes
a two -week continuance would be appropriate; and noted the Acting
Planning Director has stated the Negative Declaration was filed
with the appropriate agencies.
Acting President Arnerich requested the Acting Planning Director to
respond to whether appropriate Negative Declaration conditions were
satisfied, to which the Director stated Council received the
Negative Declaration as part of the fairly extensive packet, it was
a sub - attachment to one of the staff reports that went to the
Planning Board; affirmed conditions are satisfied, Council
received all of the Board's documentation, which makes up the
record on this project; and reviewed the Planning Board's
recommendation.
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of the Negative. Declaration,
that the mitigation elements proposed by staff be included; that
the elements are appropriate.
Councilmember Camicia stated he agreed with inclusion of the four
elements in the recommendation but believes the motion should
include action on the Appeal.
Councilmember Withrow agreed and stated the motion would deny the
Appeal, approve the Negative Declaration, and include any and all
modifications that are identified [in the report] as recommended by
the staff.
Councilmember Camicia stated he would second the motion, and added
he does not see any procedural error made by the Planning Board.
June 19, 1990
197
Councilmember Thomas stated the matter is being heard as an Appeal
which is limited to the record and it has been her understanding,
in the past, that Council heard Negative Declarations at an open
hearing, at which new evidence could be accepted and comments made;
advertising as an Appeal is not adequate notice to approve the
Negative Declaration and the Negative Declaration is not included
[in the packet].
Acting President Arnerich noted the first sentence of the
recommendation states the Planning Board recommends approval of the
Negative Declaration.
Councilmember Withrow commented there appears to be a procedural
question with respect to whether or not this Council has a hearing
for approval of the Negative Declaration or whether the Planning
Board accomplishes that function, making it open for the public to
discuss.
Acting President Arnerich commented, the Planning Board heard the
Negative Declaration, at which time comments were invited.
In response to inquiry from Councilmember Withrow, the Acting
Planning Director stated staff would like Council to take action on
the two (2) Use Permits and the Final Development Plan, and that
Council is acting on the Appeal which includes the action of the
Planning Board on the Negative Declaration.
Following further brief discussion on Negative Declaration
requirements, the Acting Planning Director indicated Council must
look at the merits of the documentation.
Acting President Arnerich clarified that Council's motion is to
accept the recommendation of the Planning Board, deny the Appeal
and include Mitigation Elements Nos. 1 -B, 3 -B, 4 -B, and 5 -B.
Councilmember Withrow agreed and expanded the motion to include the
Planning Board's recommendation for an approval of the Negative
Declaration, IS -90 -2, Use Permit 90 -7, Use Permit 90 -8 and Final
Development Plan FDP 90 -1 as stated in [Planning Board] Resolutions
Nos. 2064, 2065, 2066 and 2067.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Camicia, Withrow and Acting President Arnerich - 3.
Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: Mayor Corica - 1.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
90 -438 From City Manager regarding Neptune Plaza in -lieu parking
fees.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, suggested that, since the store
going in is 4825 square feet, 28% smaller than minimum required,
the developers should pay a $72,000 in -lieu fee, which is 28% less
than the $256,000 which was originally agreed to; and the balance
of $184,000 should be suspended for a twenty -year period, and if a
grocery store terminates during that period, the $184,000 fee
June 19, 1990
193
should be assessed against the developer; and Council should
consider the interest that the in -lieu fee could generate, if
collected.
Michael Clevenger, Banner Development, 2610 Central Avenue, stated,
after a search, Banner found a market which it believes is very
good; the market [Bonfare] has increased its square footage by 66%
to accommodate community needs; Banner has cut the store rent on
3000 square feet to 10% below existing rents, and gave additional
square footage, which [Bonfare] took to accommodate the community,
at no cost; has waived in excess of approximately $40,000 in
tenant rents per year, and is continuing to try to locate a butcher
shop, in an effort to work with the community.
Acting President Arnerich stated it is important to Council to get
an appropriate market for the people in the community.
Councilmember Withrow stated it appears the developer has made a
significant effort to address desires and needs of residents of the
West End; there is a desire for provision of some sort of meat
retailing facility for other than sliced meat, and if Council gives
up the one chip it has to provide motivation, the in -lieu parking
fees, there is no other; the recommendation of the City Manager to
suspend in -lieu parking fees for the 25 -year period makes sense;
the $250,000 figure can be kept intact; in addition, he would like
to see a good faith effort by the developer to bring in a meat
facility and added, if it is determined at some point there has not
been good faith effort, then the parking fee can be invoked.
The City Manager noted the good faith effort needs to be defined,
staff needs to report back to Council with an agreement; and
perhaps a definition of good faith can be brought back.
Councilmember Camicia noted the possibility of a deadline as one of
the suggestions of definition of good faith.
The City Manager agreed and stated another way to speed up the
matter is to authorize the City Manager or Mayor to execute the
agreement including definition of what good faith effort would be;
another option is to have agreement brought back at earliest
possible Council Meeting, most probably July 17th.
In answer to Acting President Arnerich's question regarding
anticipated square footage including a butcher shop, Mr. Clevenger
stated 1500 to 2000 square feet is being considered, which, with
Bonfare square footage, would be approximately 6700 square feet.
Councilmember Withrow moved to accept the proposal, suspend the
in -lieu parking fees, and delegate to the City Manager the
authority to determine what a good faith definition would be with
respect to pursuing a butcher shop or something similar.
Councilmember Thomas questioned the amount of square footage that
would be used for liquor; stated it might be better to extract the
$250,000 in parking fees, rehabilitate an open store front on
Webster Street, rehabbing it through Main Street Project, and put
June 19, 1990
199
in "our own" grocery store; the City is getting no guarantees,
Bonfare has an escape clause if the liquor license is not granted;
and her idea of a grocery store is one where a person can buy a
week's supply of all groceries necessary.
Acting President Arnerich stated, from his review of Bonfare
Stores, the liquor is in an area of several shelves behind the
cashier, and Bonfare is a full - service store.
Councilmember Camicia seconded Councilmember Withrow's motion;
stated perhaps Council can explore concerns raised by Councilmember
Thomas regarding Bonfare's proposal to sell liquor when the City
Manager comes back with a report on the matter.
Councilmember Camicia noted the produce section is 12 feet which is
considered enough for full produce; noted Safeway is in the
process of exploring smaller scale stores, and suggested the City
Manager investigate whether Safeway would be interested in a test
market at the site.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Camicia, Withrow and Acting President Arnerich - 3.
Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: Mayor Corica - 1.
[Under New Business, the City Manager requested clarification on
Council's action regarding authorization to execute the Agreement,
to which Councilmember Withrow responded it was his intent to
delegate the authority to the City Manager.]
90 -439 From Public Works Director recommending approval of East Bay
Regional Park District projects, Phases IV and V, for Alameda South
Shore Beach and Robert W. Crown Memorial State Beach.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, stated changes have been
made over 30 years to correct the condition of the beach, but none
worked until the present project; he feels confident the East Bay
Regional Park District will continue to take good care of the park;
and requested Council allow the EBRPD to handle the beach.
Mike Anderson, EBRPD, 11500 Skyline Boulevard, stated the project
is stabilized with only final touches to be done; at risk is about
$130,000 in State funds which will be taken back if not spent by
November, 1990; the work proposed to be accomplished are more
accessways to the beach, 13 sets of benches, pulling back the sand
fences to 20 feet off the pathway, drainage improvements including
storm drainage to the bay from City streets which is not related to
the beach; and encouraged Council to move on the matter tonight
and allow EBRPD to proceed.
Acting President Arnerich discussed alternatives regarding a bike
path with Mr. Anderson; and stated he is pleased with the work
that has been done by the District in recent years but has
reservations about a bike lane being out in the street.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated the height of the dunes are
higher than promised by EBRPD, and is concerned that the fence is
June 19, 1990
not twenty feet off the pathway.
Acting President Arnerich discussed the height of the dune grass
with Mr. Anderson, who stated that, if there are areas where the
dune grass needs to be trimmed, that can be done, and that the
District is committed to complete the project appropriately.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated low dunes are a
driving hazard because drivers look along the beach and slow
traffic.
Acting President Arnerich requested comment on the project from the
City Manager who stated the consulting engineer for the project has
provided a good way to stabilize the beach through the dune process
and the planting has worked well.
Following a discussion on pathway alternatives, bike lanes, and
possible hazards to bicylists and joggers; Acting Police Chief
Mannix clarified that bike lanes are for bicyclists; roller
skaters and pedestrians are not supposed to be in the bike lanes.
Councilmember Camicia moved the [staff] recommendation.
Councilmember Thomas stated benches and the extra path are good
ideas; agrees a bike lane in the street is not a good idea;
expressed concern regarding increase of crime activity on the beach
due to expansion and improvements; requested a report in the
future on the matter, possibly based upon crimes- against- persons
reports by census tract; and also requested information on EBRPD
response times, e.g. Beach Cafe incident.
Dave Yoas, EBRPD Supervisor, Crown Beach, answered questions
regarding police coverage, patrols, beach patrol vehicles, response
times; noted cooperation with City police; noted that since alcohol
has been banned from the beach, there has been a drop in serious
problems, and the youth profile has changed drastically.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
90 -440 From Public Works Director recommending authorization to
reprogram funds for Ferry Coordinator position. Accepted.
[Report was removed from the Consent Calendar for consideration
under the Regular Agenda; however, no discussion transpired on the
matter.]
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to accept the recommendation.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
90 -441 From Public Works Director recommending authorization to
increase contract limit for Park Street Parking Structure
Conceptual Plan from $32,000 to $45,185 to incorporate an
additional preferred parking option (Option 8).
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Drive, stated he wanted to be sure the
June 19, 1990
201
conceptual plan would include Option 8a which, based on information
that was given to the Finance Committee last week, would appear to
him to be the preferred option.
Diane Coler -Dark, 2847 Jackson Street, stated she hoped Council
will support Option 8a.
Councilmember Thomas commented Option 8a was included in Council's
former action, which the Acting Public Works Director confirmed.
Councilmember Withrow interpreted the recommendation to provide
increased funding but that Options 4, 8 and 8a will be looked at
and will come back to Council; the City Manager concurred.
Acting President Arnerich commented Option 8a should also be
included in the recommendation.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the recommendation
including Option 8a. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion
which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
RESOLUTIONS
90 -442 Resolution No. 11974 "Approving Memorandum of Understanding
between City of Alameda and Alameda Police Association including
Salary Resolution for period January 1, 1990 to December 31, 1991."
Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
90 -443 Resolution No. 11975 "Requesting deletion of SCR -20 San
Francisco Bay Crossing Study Alternative 2 (Southern Crossing
Vehicular and BART Bridge) and Alternative 3 (Southern Crossing
Vehicular and BART Tunnel) from further study." Adopted.
Acting President Arnerich suggested the matter be held over to the
next meeting, commenting he is not happy with the subject of the
Southern Crossing.
Councilmember Withrow noted the recommendation is to kill the
matter and not address it again.
Acting President Arnerich stated he thought perhaps the Mayor [upon
his return] could have input into the matter, however, Council
could take action.
Councilmember Withrow moved recommendation to kill it [study of
Southern Crossing] and if stronger language appears to be
necessary; delegate the matter to the Mayor, Vice -Mayor and City
Manager to write a letter.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4.
June 19, 1990
20 4.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
90 -444 Councilmember Camicia requested a report, off agenda,
regarding the renaming of Main Street to Mulvany.
90 -445 The City Manager requested clarification on Council's action
[See 90 -438] regarding authorization to execute the [Banner
Development] Agreement, to which Councilmember Withrow responded it
was his intent to delegate the authority to the City Manager.
NEW BUSINESS
90 -446 Acting President Arnerich encouraged Police Department to
crack down on illegal sales of cigarettes to minors.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
90 -447 Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, urged Council to
allow citizens addressing the City Budget issue to speak beyond
three minutes; also suggested the two -year budget be adhered to.
ADJOURNMENT
Acting. President Arnerich adjourned the meeting at 9 :50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in
accordance with the Brown Act.
June 19, 1990