Loading...
2001-02-06 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 6, 2001- -7:30 P.M. Vice Mayor DeWitt convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:38 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Kerr - 4. Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (01 -049) The General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) announced that the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) provided notice that the Independent System Operator (ISO) for the State was facing the prospect of having to balance the [electricity] load because three large generators in the State were threatening to turn off generation at midnight tonight due to non - payment by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG &E); turning off generators would have resulted in a 15 -to -20 percent reduction in load and severe rolling blackout implications for the northern part of the State; Alameda would have been called on to reduce its load; however, ISO lawyers received an injunction to delay turning off generators until 6:00 p.m. tomorrow. The City Manager inquired the next two zones which would have rolling blackouts under the current schedule, to which AP &T General Manager stated zones six and seven would roll out next. The City Manager stated staff is trying to show a graphic, which identifies zones, on [Television] Channel 3; as the City makes announcements, citizens will be able to identify their zones; the City has been through the first five [zones]; once the City cycles through its thirteen zones, it begins again with Zone 1; the City's Agreement with NCPA provides the flexibility to shut down no more than two zones at the same time. Councilmember Kerr stated there is a good map [of Zones] on the City's web site. AP &T General Manager stated today is the 22nd day of Stage 3 Alert, which is reserves below 1.5 percent. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 February 6, 2001 (01 -050) Councilmember Johnson stated that she, Mayor Appezzato and the Planning Director attended the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Appeal Hearing [on Regional Housing Needs Determination] to request a reduction of 900 [required housing] units; ABAG Appeals Board recommended a reduction of 441 units; originally, the City was required to plan for over 2,000 [housing] units. The City Manager stated out of twelve Appeals, Alameda was the only City which received a recommendation for reduction; said recommendation will go to the ABAG Executive Board for approval. (01 -051) Councilmember Daysog announced that a Town Hall Meeting to address traffic and pedestrian safety has been scheduled for February 15th at Mastick Senior Center; guest speakers include Professor Elizabeth Deacons from U.C. Berkeley, Zack Wald, Executive Director of a Bay Area Pedestrian Safety Group, and the Chief of Police. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor DeWitt announced that the Main Street /Atlantic Avenue Athletic Field and Street Tree Improvements [paragraph no. 01 -0581 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1.1 [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *01 -052) Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings (2) held on December 27, 2000; the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 16, 2001. Approved. ( *01 -053) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding related to Oil Spill Incident Command and Management between the State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response, and the County of Alameda Operational Area. Accepted. ( *01 -054) Recommendation to allocate additional funds for Jackson Park Renovation, Phase 1, No. P.W. 05- 00 -10. Accepted. ( *01 -055) Recommendation to allocate additional funds for the Adult Literacy Relocation Project, No. P.W. 10- 00 -15. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 February 6, 2001 ( *01 -056) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher and Burk, Inc. for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 21, No. P.W. 02- 00 -03. Accepted. ( *01 -057) Recommendation to authorize the installation of an All - Way Stop Control at the intersection of Encinal Avenue and Versailles Avenue. Accepted. (01 -058) Recommendation to approve Main Street /Atlantic Avenue Athletic Field and Street Tree Improvements in the amount of $12,975. Jenny Curtis, Alameda, thanked the City and Kiwanis Club for planting trees; stated however, acoustical engineers indicated trees will not mitigate the sound; requested the City to complete a sound study of the effect of the building [adjacent to athletic field] on the neighborhood; further stated acoustical engineers can complete a study by calculation, without children and parents present; materials, land layout and building heights could be measured to determine the extent to which the sound carries; the cost would be approximately $1,000 to $1,500; a study should have been completed with the Declaration of Negative Impact; it is unrealistic to ask parents and children to be quiet at soccer games; a sound study should be done prior to improvements which might not mitigate the sound. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated a [sound] study makes sense; if money will be spent [to make improvements], the City should know what it is doing; there are not sound experts on City staff; $1,000 to $1,500 should be spent on a study. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City still thought a sound study could be done under $1,500. The City Manager responded the City has a study identified prospectively, however, staff has not looked into the cost. Councilmember Kerr stated the figure [$1,500] was quoted in the last staff report [Call for Review of Soccer Field Use Permit, see January 16, 2001 Minutes, paragraph no. 01 -031] Councilmember Kerr moved that a sound study be completed, if it can be done for under $1,500; stated it might save the City money; money would be spent in the most effective manner. Motion failed due to lack of a second. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation to allocate $12,975 [for Main Street /Atlantic Avenue Athletic Field Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 February 6, 2001 and Street Tree Improvements]. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated a great deal of money will be wasted if the City does not know what it is doing regarding the [tree] planting; thanked the Kiwanis Club for volunteering labor. Councilmember Daysog stated there are a number of soccer fields throughout Alameda that are used at all hours; doing a sound study is an effort to not support a family friendly environment in Alameda; sound studies could be completed throughout the City, e.g. Rittler Park, Godfrey Park. Councilmember Johnson stated there are soccer fields and recreational facilities throughout the City; there are night games with bright lights at Woodstock Park, Washington Park, Leyedecker Park and Thompson Field; there are also tennis courts which are lighted at night; inquired what would result from measuring the certain noise level; stated the City will do its best to mitigate noise, which is why $12,975 is being allocated to plant trees. Councilmember Kerr stated children need places to play; a sound study would not result in closing parks; Building 360 might have a unique reflecting ability, which is why there should be a sound study; that she will support planting the trees even though it is not known whether they will do any good [reduce noise]. Vice Mayor DeWitt announced that the Kiwanis Club and Encinal High Key Club are assisting the Recreation and Park Department with tree planting on February 17th; encouraged interested residents to volunteer. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1.1 ( *01 -059) Resolution No. 13311, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84 -2." Adopted. ( *01 -060) Resolution No. 13312, "Authorizing the Filing of an Application for Federal Surface Transportation Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program Funding for Citywide Pavement Rehab and Overlay, 2000 -01 (Amended) and Committing the Necessary Local Match for the Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of Alameda to Complete the Project." Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 6, 2001 ( *01 -061) Resolution No. 13313, "Supporting Citywide Energy Reduction Efforts." Adopted. ( *01 -062) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 12 -4.18 (Use of City Employee Lots as Public Parking During Non - Business Hours) to Article I (Parking Lots) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking), Thereof, Authorizing the City Manager to Designate Use of City Employee Lots as Public Parking During Non - Business Hours. Introduced. ( *01 -063) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,540,227.17. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (01 -064) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article 27 -3 (Citywide Development Fees) to Chapter XXVII (Development Fees) Establishing a Citywide Development Fee. Introduced; and (01 -064A) Resolution No. 13314, "Establishing a Citywide Development Impact Fee Schedule for the Construction of Capital Facilities Within the City of Alameda." Adopted. The Assistant City Manager, Community and Economic Development (CED) stated the City has engaged in two public workshops and met with many people and businesses in the community, including the Business Associations; the fee will generate an excess of $26 Million in revenues for the City over time and provide a substantial benefit to the community. David Zehnder, Principal, Economic Planning System (EPS), gave a presentation outlining the Citywide Development Fee. Councilmember Kerr stated the fee will be different in different geographical areas because there is a close tie between development and Capital Improvement Projects needed; however, Alameda is a close knit community; people travel through the [Posey] Tube to get to Harbor Bay [Isle]; development in the Northern Waterfront will create traffic down Buena Vista Avenue; Alameda is so compact that is seems strange and artificial to have differing development fees in different geographical areas of the City; inquired how Assembly Bill 1600 applies to the fee. The City Attorney r summation of having relates to capital parameter; that she research on whether Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 6, 2001 esponded Councilmember Kerr gave an accurate the nexus be closely tied [development as it improvement projects], which is the legal [City Attorney] has not done the fact -based the identification of specific geographical 5 areas accomplishes said specifics; the City retained an expert [Consultant] and completed a study in order to comport with the legal standard; and deferred the fact -based question, whether or not the legal parameter was satisfied, to staff. Consultant Zehnder stated the linkage, or nexus, between the infrastructure projects in the City and benefitting parties was made as tight as possible to withstand challenge; EPS has done many similar studies and has not been challenged; a defensible methodology has been put together; traffic consultants, Dowling Associates, provided a select link analysis; Dowling completed a traffic modeling process; results showed distinct trends, which led to the establishment of multiple fees by geographic region; other jurisdictions, e.g. Santa Rosa, have similar fee structures. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether traffic engineers reviewed that traffic in and out of the Tube handles traffic throughout the City, to which Consultant Zehnder responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated Alameda is different than Santa Rose because the City is water- bound; there are a limited number of accesses. Consultant Zehnder stated different links were analyzed. Councilmember Daysog stated there are specific areas where development will occur faster, which will create a disproportionate amount of impacts; to compensate for effects of development, the development fee will be assessed; a nexus study looks at the source that is creating the impacts, e.g. driving through the Tube to get to the Northern Waterfront. Councilmember Kerr stated the City is divided into geographical areas which include existing residential areas; existing development will need to pick up its share of costs because three quarters of Capital Improvement Projects costs are the responsibility of existing development; Citywide Assessment Districts, Mellow Roos bonds, and other ways to tax existing houses are addressed; inquired whether homes in the West End should be taxed more than houses in the East End; stated if future Councils decide to establish future Assessment Districts, homes in certain areas could have higher taxes; perhaps existing residential development should be excluded; inquired whether the matter could be clarified to ensure existing houses in the West End will not be assigned higher taxes than other existing homes. The CED Assistant City Manager stated existing homeowners are not effected by the proposal [fee]; the fee only effects new development; rates were determined by the type- and location of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 6, 2001 development; the law does not allow existing homeowners and existing commercial property owners to be charged; additional funding needed will be sought from grants primarily, e.g. Measure B Reauthorization, State park bonds; the City has generated close to $70 Million in grants over the last five years; unless the Council decides to go to the voters with a specific project, there cannot be property assessments or taxes. Councilmember Kerr stated the staff report indicates existing [funding] sources may not be sufficient; inquired whether any action taken tonight will lock in different assessment rates on existing houses in different sections of the City. The CED Assistant City Manager responded in the negative; stated by definition and by law, the development fee only effects prospective development; existing homes are exempt. The City Manager stated a precedent is not being set to apply to existing homes; there is no applicability for existing development. Councilmember Kerr requested staff to confirm that the map of the City which draws lines will not be used to set a precedent for future Mellow Roos bonds or Citywide Assessment Districts; stated a future Council should not use the map to tax certain areas. The City Manager responded the map does not [set a precedent]; however, Council and staff cannot bind a future Council from taking actions; the map is not a template for future distribution of cost to existing development. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether re- leasing existing buildings at Alameda Point, by the same tenant for the same use, would trigger new development fees. The CED Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an agreement will be presented to Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) to allow fees collected from users to be transferred back to the development impact fee fund. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether existing tenants might be facing a $1/2 Million development fee. The CED Assistant City Manager responded the development fee will be handled similar to the code - related shell improvement negotiations, which currently take place; shell improvements are typically paid for by both parties [ARRA and tenant]. Councilmember Kerr stated ARRA does not have money; reduced rent has to be accepted from tenants making capital improvements; there Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 6, 2001 are existing buildings to rent; inquired whether a new use in an hangar would require $1/2 Million development fee. The CED Assistant City Manager stated there is a mechanism built into the Ordinance which allows applicants to make a case to the Public Works Director in the event square footage requires a certain fee, but the use is not vehicle trip intensive, e.g. bulk storage which might only employee a small number of people; the Public Works Director can determine if an adjustment needs to be made. Councilmember Daysog stated that in 1978, Proposition 13 capped the amount of property taxes which could be collected; cities established development fees to tax development projects creating infrastructure impacts and impacts on City services; provided examples of development and its impacts. The City Manager stated the City's total budget is approximately $255 Million; the City's share of property tax is $13.8 Million, which is less than 100 of the total income; charging fees is the appropriate thing to do to deliver services to the community; the Police Department budget alone is $15.9 Million. Councilmember Kerr stated the City has been collecting fees in a project specific manner; the action tonight standardizes the fees. John Abrate, Economic Development Commission (EDC), stated the proposed development fee is a standardization; fees for the Browman [Development Company] Project [corner of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue] were first estimated to be $400,000; after City staff reviewed the matter, actual fees were $75,000; if the standardization were in place, the Browman [Development Company] Project fees would have been $68,000; set fees should be in place, rather than creating a new fee structure with every new development; urged adoption of the Resolution. Dr. Victoria Brown, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber is in favor of the fee schedule and Resolution. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the fee makes sense; Alameda does not have ways to make additional connections to freeways; the City needs another estuary crossing; there needs to be traffic mitigation through supporting public transit; buses are already full; mitigating public transit is key to making Alameda a more livable place; development fees should provide continual support to public transit. Jon Spangler, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated there should be a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 February 6, 2001 systematic fee schedule for development, however, not all development costs can be quantified; planning processes need to be undertaken slowly, carefully and with broad involvement; the City should review non - quantified development costs; Alameda should charge higher fees because it is an island and has a lot to offer. Councilmember Johnson stated the proposed fees were compared to other cities in the area; inquired why the consultant recommended fees lower than other cities. Consultant Zehnder responded a specific rate, higher or lower than other cities, was not targeted; after the fee was calculated, a feasibility study was completed; the quantitative analysis resulted in a fee lower than other cities; some of the other cities might have higher representation of new development versus existing development. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether fees could be used to upgrade current systems or only used for new infrastructure. Consultant Zehnder responded a development impact fee cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies; however, if an upgrade is needed to serve new development, it can be done. The City Manager stated if development demands a four -lane there is a clear connection expansion can be completed. a two -lane highway exists but highway, it can be constructed; if between development and traffic, Councilmember Johnson stated there are improvements in the West End district due to [former] Base redevelopment; inquired what are specific improvements. Consultant Zehnder stated there are a number of major arterial improvements on Atlantic Avenue, Main Street and Tinker Avenue. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether a portion of the West End district, which does not need as many improvements as Alameda Point, should be separated out. Consultant Zehnder responded having too many districts is overly complicated and becomes too difficult to administer; major areas were aggregated into four districts; certain lines could be argued, however, traffic analysis zones were used to aggregate zones. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the development fee could be modified if a large, new Capital Improvement Project was needed to satisfy new development. Consultant Zehnder responded in the affirmative; stated State law Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 February 6, 2001 mandates that the fee be monitored and updated periodically; two variables will change: 1) the amount of development, and 2) infrastructure segments could be added or removed; the periodic update process allows the fee to be refined and updated on a regular basis. Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [introduction of the Ordinance and adoption of the Resolution]. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the staff report indicates the fee program provides for full predictability and certainty; the Browman Development Company Project had fees added along the way; prior to establishment of the fee, developers did not know how much fees would be. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1. (01 -065) Recommendation to accept annual review of Affordable Housing Unit Fee (AHUF) Ordinance and consideration of an adjustment to the requirement. Councilmember Daysog stated more affordable housing is needed; the AHUF has been in place for almost 11 years; the proposal is to adjust the nominal rate which was set back in 1989; staff came up with a recommendation [15o increase] to ensure Alameda's fee remains competitive with other cities; there are two options: 1) a 15% increase, or 2) a 34% increase, which would capture all the effects of inflation. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated staff recommends approval of a 150 increase; the amount of money provided [by commercial development] to the City in lieu of building housing is not much, e.g. Wind River provided $390,000; the amount charged 10 years ago is the same as the amount charged today; due to inflation, the fee should be raised. Councilmember Johnson stated the staff recommendation makes sense; commercial development generates a need for housing; employees cannot afford housing in Alameda; that she would not be opposed to an adjustment based on the CPI [Consumer Price Index] annually. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Councilmember Johnson supports a 150 or 34% increase, to which Councilmember Johnson responded 150. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 February 6, 2001 Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation [staff draft legislation for City Council consideration which would increase the AHUF for inflation by approximately 15 percent and consider subsequent adjustments every two years based on the CPI]. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1.] (01 -066) Ordinance No. 2853, "Authorizing Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Alameda." Finally passed. Councilmember Johnson moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1.1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (01 -067) Delores Wills - Guyton, Alameda, stated that she is a victim of the January 15th Harbor Island Apartment fire; requested the City Council to encourage the property management company, Westdale Asset Management, to be morally and financially responsible for the fire; stated the fire could have been stopped if there was a fire hose or extinguisher on their floor; the property management company has told people there are three vacancies, however, fire victims were informed there are no vacancies; a Section 8 recipient was also told there are no vacancies; the residents [fire victims] have not had any communication with Westdale Management other than to sign waivers to go into apartments to remove belongings and to receive a move out refund; urged Council to ensure that Westdale Management be held responsible for its negligence. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Community Development Manager Carol Beaver could comment on the matter. The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated information provided to Council by Ms. Beaver this evening could be shared with members of the public. Councilmember Kerr encouraged Ms. Guyton to speak to Ms. Beaver. (01 -068) Thaydra Johnese, Alameda, stated that she is a victim of the January 15th Fire [at Harbor Island Apartments] and is a Section 8 participant; the Housing Authority has done nothing to assist tenants; due to the [housing] market, people are not Section 8 friendly; it is hard to find low- income affordable housing in the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 11 February 6, 2001 City of Alameda; that she and her children are sleeping on a friend's floor; requested Council to encourage Westdale Asset Management to live up to its moral obligations; stated there was not proper safety; Westdale Management should do something for its tenants. (01 -069) Robert Woods, Alameda, Member of BMX Riders Association, stated there is no open space to ride bikes; playing fields are multi -use facilities, e.g., used for soccer and baseball; the Skate Park should serve bikes, skates and roller blades; time should be designated for each use. (01 -070) Maurice Meyer, Member of BMX Riders Association, stated riding bikes is a positive thing and helped him when he was a disadvantaged youth; youth need a place to practice [BMX riding]; the Skate Park is a wonderful facility; requested Council to repeal the rule prohibiting BMX bikes [at the Skate Park]. Councilmember Kerr requested the City Attorney to provide speakers with a copy of the limited liability law, which applies to skateboarding, but still does not apply to BMX riding. (01 -071) Sam Pederson, Member of BMX Riders Association, stated BMX riders have a long history of riding bikes at skate parks; treating young athletes [bike riders] as criminals by ticketing them sends the wrong message; bike riders compete on the same courses as skateboarders; there are three quick solutions to allow BMX riding: 1) allow BMX at the Skate Park; 2) have separate hours for BMX riders and skaters; or 3) build a separate park for bike riders; the liability law does not have bicycles on the hazardous sports list along with skateboarding, however, California Government Code Section 831.7 places bicycle racing or jumping and mountain bike riding on the hazardous sports list. (01 -072) Reverend Betty Williams, Alameda Race Violence Task Force, requested a correspondence in response to her concerns on: 1) how many Police Officers work for the Housing Authority; and 2) whether Officers are employed by the City or under contract with the Housing Authority; stated there is concern that Officers' duties are not clear; Officers have entered homes, looked through closets and transmitted information to the Housing Authority which has threatened tenant's housing. The City Manager stated staff would respond to the issues raised by Reverend Williams; the Housing Authority is a department of the City and is not a separate agency. Reverend Williams further stated fire victims' comments raise concern; the Housing Authority should start abiding by Federal Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 February 6, 2001 Guidelines; [Guideline] Sections deal with displaced tenants; Section 8 is under the Housing Authority's jurisdiction; there are Guidelines for Section 8 participants who have been displaced in emergencies. (01 -073) Richard Neveln, Alameda, announced that there will be a Public Transit Committee Meeting tomorrow; encouraged comment on the development of a comprehensive Transit Plan; stated funding is needed to pay for the Transit Plan [recommendations], e.g. shuttle service funded by merchants. (01 -074) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated affordable housing fees should be revisited in six months; the fee should be brought up to where it would be if it had stayed with inflation rates; a percentage point, in addition to the CPI increase, should be added each year to raise fee to adjusted- for - inflation level. Mr. Spangler further stated Bike Alameda has discussed creating a velodrome in a hangar at Alameda Point; building a BMX park and Olympic - quality velodrome would be easy; Alameda would have the only year -round velodrome in the Bay Area and maybe even California; the facility could be used for bike safety education and races; the facility would be much cheaper than the championship golf course, which will be put in at Alameda Point. In response to Council inquiry, Mr. Spangler stated a velodrome is an 250 meter circular track like those used in for high speed bicycle racing in the Olympics. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (01 -075) Councilmember Daysog requested City staff to review BMX enthusiasts' suggestions and whether State legislation allows BMX riding on skateboard parks; stated the speakers [under Oral Communications] should be kept in the information loop. (01 -076) In response to comments by Harbor Island Apartment fire victims, Councilmember Daysog stated in the private market, private landlords are not accepting Section 8; landlords are making the choice [not to provide Section 8 housing] because Section 8 vouchers provide less than what the market provides; further stated that he is willing to listen to additional information on the Section 8 housing problem. (01 -077) Councilmember Daysog announced that there will be a Town Hall Meeting on traffic and pedestrian safety, February 15th at Mastick Senior Center. (01 -078) Councilmember Johnson stated there are utility boxes on [Shoreline] Beach; inquired whether there are restrictions to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 February 6, 2001 prohibit more utility boxes from being added; further inquired if not, should restrictions be in place; stated the particular location is where Westline [Drive] curves onto Shoreline [Drive]. The City Manager stated an Off Agenda Report would be provided to the Council. (01 -079) Councilmember Kerr stated there have been suggestions from other cities and citizens in Alameda to review the Utility Users Tax (UUT) ; requested a report on the matter; stated the City is able to stabilize its rates; inquired how much it would cost to freeze the UUT on gas [charges] and how much the City expects to pay in increases for its own use of gas. The City Manager stated the Finance Director is preparing an Off Agenda Report on the matter. (01 -080) Councilmember Kerr stated that she requested a copy of the City's Agreement with PG &E for delivery [of electricity] over the [power] grid; stated many people are asking why there are blackouts if NCPA produces more power than its users need. The City Manager responded that this evening AP &T General Manager provided a copy of the Inter Connection Agreement [with PG &E], which the City Council approved in 1991; stated Councilmember Kerr should advise him if more information is needed. Councilmember Kerr stated NCPA produces more power than needed and the City cannot get to it, which is a great injustice. (01 -081) Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the City Clerk received a letter complaining about noise at the Island Paradise Bar on Webster Street; requested the City Manager to review the matter with the Police Department and place it on an agenda to allow Council to hear neighbors' complaints. The City Manager stated that he has received information from the City Attorney on said matter; staff will follow up; the matter might be addressed in Closed Session prior to being placed on an Agenda in open session. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, Vice Mayor DeWitt adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:41 p.m. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 6, 2001 Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC 14 City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 February 6, 2001