Loading...
1998-02-17 Joint CIC and Special and Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 17, 1998- -6:40 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special City Council meeting at 6:40 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas, and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-85) Conference with Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator: Personnel Director and Austris Rungis, Employee Organization(s): Alameda Police Officers Association - APOA, United Public Employees Association #790 (Police Technicians) - SEIU. (98-86) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation, Initiation of Litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 54956.9; Number of Potential Cases: One. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, Council gave instructions to the City's negotiators and no action was taken; and regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council gave direction to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 17, 1998- -7:25 P.M. AE12 THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 17, 1998- -7:25 P.M. Mayor/Chair Appezzato convened the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 7:31 p.m. Councilmember/Commissioner Lucas led the Pledge of Allegiance. Father Timothy Erwin, St. Barnabas Church. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor/Chair Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. MINUTES - COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION (98-16) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting of February 3, 1998. Approved. Commissioner Lucas moved approval of the Minutes. Commissioner DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (CC 98-87) (CIC 98-17) JOINT ACTION (City Council and Community Improvement Commission) Public Hearing to consider adoption of the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project; and COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION Public Hearing to consider the determination to delay California Environmental Quality Act Application to Community Improvement Plan. Mayor/Chair Appezzato announced that this would be a formal Special Joint Alameda City Council/ Community Improvement Commission Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting February 17, 1998 54 meeting; and that he would be following a procedural outline. Roll call of the City Council was noted. Roll call of the Community Improvement Commission was noted. The Economic Development Manager entered into the record Exhibit 1, Affidavit of Publication; Exhibit 2, Certificate of Mailing to each assessee of land in the Project Area; Exhibit 3, Certificate of Mailing to each business and resident in the Project Area; Exhibit 4, Certificate of Mailing to governing bodies of each taxing agency within the Project Area; and Exhibit 5, Certification of Certain Official Actions. There being no objections, Mayor/Chair Appezzato stated these documents will be made a part of the record. The Economic Development Manager gave introductory comments about the history of the proposed project area, the location of the project area and reasons redevelopment has been proposed for the project area. Special Counsel Dave Beatty discussed the Community Improvement Plan. Mayor/Chair Appezzato inquired whether there were any questions from the members of the City Council or the Commission on the Community Improvement Plan. Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether changes made to the Report to Council and the Community Improvement Plan attached to the Council/Commission staff report as erratas were included in the materials being entered into the record, to which Special Counsel Beatty responded that said changes were attached to the official Plan. There being no objections, Mayor/Chair Appezzato stated the Community Improvement Plan would be entered into the record as Exhibit 6. Consultant Jim Burns briefly summarized the Report of the Commission to the City Council. Special Council Beatty introduced evidence for consideration by the City Council and the Commission in connection with the findings and determinations that must be made in the City Council ordinance adopting the Community Improvement Plan. Mayor/Chair Appezzato inquired whether there were any questions by members of the City Council or the Commission. Special Joint Alameda City Council/ Community Imprcvement Commission Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting February 17, 1998 55 There being no questions or objections, Mayor/Chair Appezzato stated the Report of the Commission to the City Council will be made a part of the record as Exhibit 7. The Economic Development Manager discussed the need to adopt the Community Improvement Plan at the soonest possible time in order to use the authority in the Special Base Closure Legislation to delay the application of the California Environmental Quality Act to the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. Mayor/Chair Appezzato inquired whether there were any questions by members of the City Council or the Commission on the need to delay application of the California Environmental Quality Act to the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan. There being no questions, the Economic Development Manager requested the Rules for Owner Participation by Property Owners/Business Occupants in Community Improvement Project Areas be entered into the record. Mayor/Chair Appezzato inquired whether there were any questions by members of the City Council or the Commission regarding said Rules. There being no questions or objections, Mayor/Chair Appezzato stated the Owner Participation Rules, as adopted by the Commission, will be made a part of the record as Exhibit 8. Mayor/Chair Appezzato requested any written communications received on the Community Improvement Plan be entered into the record as Exhibit 9. The City Clerk stated no written comments were received. Mayor/Chair Appezzato called for statements or testimony in favor and in opposition to the Community Improvement Plan or the delay in the application of the California Environmental Quality Act to the adoption of the Community Improvement Plan and any further statements or testimony. There being no oral testimony, Mayor/Chair Appezzato inquired whether there were any questions by members of the City Council or the Commission. There being no further testimony or evidence to be received, Mayor/Chair Appezzato declared the joint and concurrent Public Hearing of the City Council and the Community Improvement Commission closed. Special Joint Alameda City Council/ Community Improvement Commission Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting February 17, 1998 56 * * * Mayor/Chair Appezzato recessed the City Council meeting to be continued immediately following conclusion of the Community Improvement Commission meeting. * * * COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION (98-18) Resolution No. 98-75, "Determining the Need to Adopt a Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project and Delay Application of the California Environmental Quality Act." Adopted. Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Commissioner Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * * Chair Appezzato called the City Council meeting into session. * * * (98-88) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * * Mayor/Chair Appezzato adjourned and reopened the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission meeting and the Special Community Improvement Commission meeting. * * * Special Joint Alameda City Council/ Community Improvement Commission Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting February 17, 1998 57 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) None. COUNCIL/COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS (Communication from Councilmembers/Commissioners) None. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Chair/Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission meeting and the Special Community Improvement Commission meeting at 8:06 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk Secretary, Community Improvement Commission NOTE: A transcript of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's office. The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Alameda City Council/ Community Improvement Commission Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission Meeting February 17, 1998 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -FEBRUARY 17, 1998- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:07 p.m. Councilmember Lucas led the Pledge of Allegiance. Father Timothy Erwin, St. Barnabas Church gave the Invocation. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation [See Paragraph No. 98- .22.] (98-89) Presentation by Danny Wan, Director, East Bay Municipal Utilities District, on the conversion to Chloramines as the water disinfectant, the Seismic Improvement Program and the Water Supply Master Plan. Held over. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lucas moved acceptance of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*98-90) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on February 3, 1998. Approved. (*98-91) Recommendation to accept Financial Report for the quarter ending December 31, 1997 including midyear adjustments. Accepted. (*98-92) Resolution No. 12960, "Supporting the Alameda One-Stop Career Center." Adopted. (*98-93) Resolution No. 12961, "Authorizing the City Manager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 - 2% Funds for Operating Subsidy for the East End Ferry Service and to Enter into All Agreements Necessary to Secure Said Funds." Adopted. (*98-94) Resolution No. 12962, "Authorizing Restructuring of the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 Island Landscaping and Lighting Loan for Attendant Lots A and C." Adopted. (*98-95) Resolution No. 12963, "Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2." Adopted. (*98-96) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2096 to Extend the Existing Cable Franchise Agreement with United Cable Television of Alameda, Inc., D/B/A/ TCI Cablevision of Alameda for Six Months to Enable Completion of Franchise Negotiations. Introduced. (*98-97) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,139,649.33. GU t 6, (98-98) Consideration of directing staff to prepare an Ordinance limiting storage of ammunition, explosives and weapons within 500 feet of any Residentially Zoned Area. [Councilmember Lucas] Councilmember Kerr stated that she would be recusing herself from the matter before Council, even though the preliminary information from the Fair Political Practices Commission [FPPC] stated it was not necessary. Councilmember Lucas stated that she had suggested Council discussion on the storage of ammunition and explosives within 500 feet of a residential area, in order to learn where other Councilmembers stood on the issue and whether an ordinance should be considered; in the past, the City has protected residential areas, e.g. requiring adult book shops to remain 500 feet from residentially zoned areas, and the elimination of the sale of ammunition and weapons from residential areas; and that she would prefer the requirement of a Use Permit, which would provide notice to neighbors and the allowance for neighbors to be heard and possibly object to the location of a business. Councilmember Lucas further clarified that an ordinance addressing the storage of ammunition and weapons would be a City-wide ordinance, and that the City Manager would agendize the problem regarding JL Associates, 1501 Buena Vista Avenue in March. Don Roberts, Alameda, stated there had been implications it was improper for Councilmember Barbara Kerr to speak on the issue, since her home is within 2500 feet of the Project [1501 Buena Vista Avenue]; that he [Roberts] believes he heard Councilmember Kerr state that it is not in violation of the law, but she recused herself from speaking on this issue; at the December 2, 1997, Council Meeting, Mayor Appezzato voted to spend $143,000 to repair dikes on the shoreline of Harbor Bay Isle, and the Mayor's home is well within 2500 feet from one of those Projects which presumably Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 could have had a financial impact on the value of his home. Mr. Roberts then inquired why the Mayor had not removed himself from the podium for that item as Councilmember Kerr had for the item before Council. Mayor Appezzato stated that Councilmember Kerr was welcome to sit and listen to the topic if she so desired. Councilmember Lucas requested clarification on the distance factor, to which the City Attorney responded that there are a number of different criteria for distance, and each criteria establishes a different presumption of conflict of interest; that she [City Attorney] gives advice on conflict of interest, but the FPPC is the final enforcement person, arbitrator and decision maker on a specific issue. Charles Ward, Alameda, spoke in support of a City-wide ordinance. Mayor Appezzato stated that Council is committed to the health and safety of the neighborhoods. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated that Council should wait another fourteen days and consider [a forthcoming] report on the recent Community Meeting [February 12, 1998] held on the matter of JL Associates. William Rae, Alameda, stated the proposed ordinance could adversely impact an individual's right to keep and bear arms; and urged Council to reject proposal. Steven Gerstle, Alameda, stated proposed ordinance does not go far enough; it does not address: 1) all hazardous substances, 2) transportation of substances, and 3) all areas of the City. The City Attorney stated the City is subject to Federal and State preemptions, particularly regarding the transportation of hazardous materials. Douglas Holmes, Alameda, stated that he was in support of Councilmember Lucas's proposal to impose controls. Carol Bernard, Alameda, stated that she was in support of the matter before Council; legislation could be crafted so that exemptions are written for homeowners and small businesses that need to store certain items on their premises; proposed ordinance should include hazardous materials; and that she questions whether 500 feet is adequate space between storage facilities and residences. Bill Garvine, Alameda, suggested businesses be held to the same standards as the Police Department for the safety of munitions; and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council. February 17, 1998 the matter of hazardous materials should be referred to the public safety staff for clear definitions and recommendations. Councilmember Daysog stated everything should be done to inform, protect and serve the community; City should take its time and be crystal clear on what is to be accomplished; development of an ordinance will take time; the JL Associates matter, or perhaps both the matter of JL Associates and an ordinance, should be addressed in two weeks. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the storage area of JL Associates is really the topic this evening; that he walked through the JL Associates Plant and did not find anything out of the ordinary that would explode; that he had lived in the area and he will represent the citizens of that neighborhood; the 78 questions presented in early February should be answered and the matters of a proposed ordinance and the consideration of a Use Permit requirement should be addressed; Council would make a decision whether JL Associates should remain in Alameda; and the issue should be brought back to Council as soon as possible. Mayor Appezzato stated the action taken has to be fair to all; if the perception is fear for health and safety, the City will need to deal with that perception. Public safety personnel defined hazardous materials. Councilmember Lucas suggested the matter of a proposed ordinance be tabled until after discussion on JL Associates. Vice Mayor DeWitt agreed. Councilmember Daysog stated there is a need to recognize that Council must work from a fact-based perspective. Mayor Appezzato agreed with Councilmember Lucas's suggestion. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the issue should be resolved as quickly as possible. The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back to the Council no later than March 17, and hopefully by March 3. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (98-99) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Ruth Abbe and Kevin Good for their efforts on behalf of Supercycle (Recycling) Program to collect and redistribute old residential recycling bins to public and private schools. Mayor Appezzato presented Certificates to Ms. Abbe and Mr. Good. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 (98 -100) Recommendation to accept Status Report on Grubb and Ellis's efforts to sell the 10.28 acre parcel, APN 074 - 1339 -32 -1, located within the Harbor Bay Isle Business Park. [Councilmember Kerr] Councilmember Kerr stated the listing would expire on May 18, 1998; the City was losing about $15,000 per month in assessments and taxes and had not received any offers; and inquired whether the two parties who offered to purchase the property in the past had been approached. The City Manager responded the City had not approached the two parties because said property had been listed through the City's official agent: Grubb and Ellis; and that all parties have had an opportunity to submit proposals. Councilmember Kerr further stated there was a period after the listing in which the original two parties could have made an offer and the City would not have had to pay a commission; and inquired whether said period was a 30 -day or 6 -month period. The City Manager responded that the 30 -day period had been exhausted almost upon conclusion of Council deliberations on whether to proceed forward or whether to accept an offer; the other period had been exceeded as well. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether staff had been doing some planning in the event said property did not sell by May 18, 1998. The City Manager stated the City would approach the original two parties again, upon Council direction, to determine whether said parties were still interested. Councilmember Lucas stated it was not easy to sell a large commercial piece of property; that she might consider extending the listing period; that she was not satisfied with the [former] offers; there was no disadvantage with the listing agreement; if the property is not sold and no offers received, another listing agent or possible extension [of existing agreement] should be considered. Mayor Appezzato stated that he was not adverse to the original owner of the property reclaiming it; there had not been a guaranteed offer on the table; there are still options; and if the property did not sell by May, the matter would come back to the Council for further action. Councilmember Daysog stated that he did not believe it was prudent to go with $5.00 per square foot. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 Vice Mayor DeWitt moved acceptance of the report. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-101) Recommendation to authorize expansion of the Government Channel 22 Production to include all Boards and Commissions that meet in the City Hall Council Chambers, Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Public Utilities Board [PUB] Meetings should be televised; and the cost to broadcast Board and Commission meetings should be given consideration. Mayor Appezzato stated that he did not see any reason to withhold the Housing Commission's request to meet at Independence Plaza. Councilmember Lucas stated the various Boards and Commissions should be surveyed as to whether they desire meetings to be broadcast; and that the Social Service Human Relations Board discusses many items of interest to the community. Councilmember Kerr stated the survey should include the number of people in attendance at Board and Commission meetings; and City staff should list Board and Commission meetings weekly on Channel 22. Councilmember Daysog stated that he supported Councilmember Lucas's position on the matter, however, the Social Service Human Relations Board's quarterly meetings and the Recreation Commission meetings should be televised, as in the past. Mayor Appezzato stated staff should report back to the City Council on the matter, and include the cost to broadcast. The City Manager stated staff understood Council's direction and would proceed accordingly. (98-102) Resolution No. 12964, "Determining Net Benefit for the Cross-Airport Roadway Project." Adopted. Dion Griffin, Executive Director, Harbor Bay Business Park Association, introduced a letter from Jonathan Bond, Vice President, Intrepid Systems, supporting the Roadway; and spoke in support of the Resolution. Francis Lo, Alameda County Transportation Authority, provided a brief history of the Project; and urged the Council to adopt the Resolution. Amey Stone, Alameda, stated the City is strangling from traffic; the Project has been on the books for a great many years, and the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 64 Project is funded; when the Project was presented, it was to be an aid to the East End, as well as all other parts of the Island, it was not to dump traffic onto any neighborhood; unless those plans have changed, that is not going to happen; the Project should move forward and Council should support it. Judge Chester Richard Bartalini, Alameda, stated in November, 1986 the Project was identified and trumpeted as an immediate benefit to the community; Project will alleviate some of the traffic problems; the Project will provide necessary access to the Harbor Bay Business Park and will facilitate attracting businesses; and urged Council to adopt the Resolution. Bill Garvine, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber believes the Project is a critical factor in the continued success of economic development in the community, and also will enhance the quality of residential life in town; the Roadway will also be an important contributor to Alameda's capacity to positively react to emergency situations. Steve Brimhall, Doric Group, Harbor Bay Isle Association, stated the Development Agreement was approved in 1989; the permits are there for the Business Park to build out; the Cross Airport Roadway Project is the only project available to mitigate the increased traffic which will occur as the Business Park builds out; the Project is funded; the Project will not dump traffic onto Maitland Drive; the intersection at Harbor Bay Parkway and Maitland Drive is being completely redesigned and separated; there will be two different traffic signals which will be put in place and under the control of the City; Doolittle Drive is a traffic problem; the Project is a four-lane divided road going across the Airport; there is a sixteen-foot median between the lanes of traffic; the Project will increase the ridership of the Harbor Bay Ferry; and urged Council to make the net benefit determination. Tom Jordan, Executive Director, Community of Harbor Bay Isle, stated the Project will remove traffic congestion; many residents will use the Cross Airport Roadway to get to 1-880 at either Hegenberger Road or 98th Avenue, and then turn north to save fifteen minutes; ferry traffic will increase; there is a net benefit to moving forward with the Project. Mike Dunlap, Operating Engineers Local #3, stated support for the Project. Steve Ahlberg, Alameda, Garner Preschool Learning Center, stated the Project will benefit the whole community; better access will provide a greater safety valve in the event of a disaster; and urged Council to support the Resolution. Councilmember Lucas stated there are no other realistic plans for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 additional access to, and egress out of, Alameda; and moved approval of the recommendation. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the action tonight is another legal requirement to indicate support for the Project, and inquired which legal procedure this evening's action met. The City Attorney responded adoption of the Resolution is a commitment to the Project; if it fails, it will not be because of Alameda's non-participation. Councilmember Kerr stated that she did not believe the Council should be voting on the matter yet; there is litigation regarding the Airport; Council had an opportunity to delay the voting due to tolling agreement; to vote on the matter tonight is to commit to spend over $7 Million; the first Environmental Impact Report [EIR] for the [Oakland] Airport stated that the Project would increase traffic at the East End of the island, the last EIR does not make any comment one way or the other; that she has concern the Cross Airport Roadway will not relieve traffic at the East End; no set of traffic lights will prevent the traffic from moving over to Maitland Drive; the Project will destroy that section of Bay Farm Island; the Council should not commit to $7 Million before it absolutely must; there is a small chance that it might adversely effect the suit against the Port of Oakland on the EIR for the Airport Expansion Project; Council should not diminish its chances to win that lawsuit, even by a very small chance; and that Council should have taken advantage of the tolling agreement. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding the aforementioned lawsuit, the City Attorney stated the current Petition filed attacks the Environmental Review of the expansion of Oakland Airport, not the Environmental Review of the Cross Airport Roadway. Mayor Appezzato stated there was voter approval before his time; the City needs to help the Business Park develop and the ferry service; the Roadway will provide disaster relief if there is a major catastrophe; traffic reduction on the main island is a distinct possibility; and that he will support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (98-103) Resolution Calling a Special Election in the City of Alameda for the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the City of Alameda Charter Pertaining to the Powers of the Public Utilities Board; Fixing the Date of Said Election, the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 6 6 Manner of Holding Same, and Providing for Notice Thereof; Consolidating Said Special Election with the Primary Election of the State of California to be Held on Tuesday, June 2, 1998; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment. Not adopted. Consideration of directing the City Clerk to transmit a copy of the Measure to the City Attorney to prepare an Impartial Analysis; and Consideration of designating Councilmember(s) to write a Ballot Measure Argument and/or requesting the City Manager to provide a staff report. Judge Chester Richard Bartalini, Alameda, stated that his concern was the timing of the Ballot Measure for the June Election; there was a lawsuit on file which would determine whether or not the Bureau of Electricty's program would be allowed; appropriate and competent legal counsel was putting together additional changes to the Ordinance to make the Public Utilities Board elective and to remove the City Manager as one of the five representatives; said changes would be ready for the November Ballot; and going ahead with the June Ballot was spending additional public monies. Amey Stone, Alameda, stated that she did not know whether she would be for or against the Measure, and believes every other resident of the City would be in the same position; she objects to the June Election; there is not ample time to educate the electorate on the issue; there should be a larger voter turnout in November; and that she encourages Council not to place the Measure on the June Ballot. Lance Russum, Vice President, Public Utilities Board, stated the Board initially began to review the direction the Bureau should consider in light of all the deregulation issues in July, 1996; at Council's direction, the matter of which changes should be made to be competitive, to raise money and to have viable business enterprises to enhance the City's General Fund were addressed; the Board did not begin to get into the cable industry until many complaints were received regarding TCI; the Bureau believes TCI needs competition and the citizens deserve better service; the Business Plan shows that the Bureau can provide better service at a lower rate for the benefit of the community; there is the validation action, but there is also the Cross Complaint filed by TCI; it is important to have the matter voted on for ratification purposes and to put the City on a level playing field with TCI and any other competitor; the Business Plan has been approved by the Bureau and the City Council; if the issue is decided upon on June 2, the validation action goes away. Mayor Appezzato questioned whether three months is adequate time to educate the community, and also questioned if it would be detrimental to wait until November. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 Lance Russum stated that he was not sure whether it would be detrimental to wait until November; it simply postpones the particular vote; Council knows the pulse of the community; the Board would defer to Council's wishes; polls indicate citizens basically favor the proposed Charter Amendments, once they understand the issues. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated that he is in favor of the proposed City Charter Amendments; expressed concern regarding educating the electorate; and requested the Council to consider the November Ballot. At the request of Councilmember Kerr, the Acting General Manager of the Bureau of Electricity Juelle Ann Boyer stated that the Bureau has a plan in place for educating the community and is prepared to provide information to the community; the Bureau believes there will be support for the issue; if the Ballot Measure is delayed until November, a Court decision before that time is likely, which would preclude the necessity of having the Charter Amendment on the ballot; the longer that the Bureau delays entry into the [telecommunication] business, the greater risk of devaluing the [City's] asset; the Bureau needs the ability to enter into the telecommunications business, a revolving fund of assets, and an ability to help the ratepayers achieve a certain energy efficiency; the Bureau is limited to a [revolving fund] amount adopted in 1937; if Council decides not to put the Amendment on the Ballot until November, the Bureau will be forced to consider other alternatives which will change some of the parameters and decisions coming up for the PUB concerning deregulation and open access. Councilmember Kerr stated November would provide more time to prepare for the Ballot Measure, however, there may be a long Sample Ballot; another consideration is the lawsuit [against the City] for not acting in accordance with the City Charter; and it [approval of the Charter Amendment in June] could save a lot of litigation money which would offset the cost of a [June] Special Election. Councilmember Daysog stated educating the voters and delaying the election until November is time well spent; given the importance of the Bureau, all necessary precautions should be taken. Councilmember Lucas inquired how June Elections differ from November Elections, to which the City Clerk responded voter turnout should be greater in November; and that the June Primary ballot would be long due to the "Open Primary Election." Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the real issue is whether the City is interested in going into the full telecommunications business; the citizens need to be educated on the matter; that he had voted in favor of going into the cable business; more time is needed to review the matter of entering into the full telecommunications Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 business and educating the citizens; and he questioned whether a Charter amendment allowing certain funding capabilities to enter into the Cable business could be considered [and entering the full telecommunications business addressed in November]. The Acting General Manager responded that the entire proposal would be necessary. Councilmember Kerr stated a TCI representative recently discussed TCI's plan to lay a fiber optic system throughout the City in the near future; given the lawsuit and TCI's aggressiveness in approaching the issue, time is important; Council should consider the cost of delaying the matter in terms of TCI wanting to make Alameda a national example. In response to Mayor Appezzato's concern regarding timing, the City Attorney stated if there was a challenged validation action, there probably would not be final resolution before either June or November, 1998; if the City won and TCI's challenge was overruled, TCI could appeal; said decision could potentially go to the U.S. Supreme Court, because it is interpretation of a federal law. Mayor Appezzato stated this is an issue that has been forced upon the City by deregulation; if TCI wants to be a competitor and they can be more competitive than the City, then no one is going to purchase Cable TV from the City; the Bureau states that Alameda can be competitive and beat TCI at their prices; the money that the Bureau would collect would go into the Bureau and into the City to offset taxes; the Bureau has to be competitive in the 21st Century. Councilmember Lucas inquired how likely TCI might make a major investment with new fiber optic lines before the voters decide on said matter. Acting General Manager Juelle Ann Boyer stated that she could not speak on behalf of TCI, and the Regional Vice President should be invited to speak on the issue. Mayor Appezzato questioned whether inviting TCI to address the Council would be a good idea. Councilmember Kerr responded that TCI did state in a memo that they planned to lay 30 miles of fiber optic cable, and that TCI could do a mile a day. Mayor Appezzato stated the question is whether the City can provide a cable package similar to TCI's at half the price, or whatever it may be, and he inquired whether the City could be competitive with TCI regardless of what they do. Acting General Manager Boyer stated that the Bureau has thought of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 69 some strategies. Councilmember Daysog stated that the City is entering into the telecommunications business, not just getting into the cable business; and is laying a foundation for providing the infrastructure that allows companies to do fascinating types of development projects. Acting General Manager Boyer stated it is part of the basis for investing $7.8 Million in a plant which will produce more than just Cable TV; Cable TV is what can be made profitable right away. Councilmember Lucas stated that the Acting General Manager raised a legitimate concern: the Bureau loses time which hampers its entry into the new market areas; on the hand, more than three months are needed and the November Election provides more voter participation; and moved matter be scheduled for the November Election. Mayor Appezzato stated there are three recommendations, including who writes the Argument. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Council was determining who would write the Ballot Argument. Mayor Appezzato stated that Council was addressing the June Election versus November Election. On the call for the motion, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Appezzato stated that the Charter Amendment would go before the voters in November. The City Attorney stated that it would be helpful for the City Clerk and her to bring back the appropriate Resolutions for adoption; the legislation needs to be specifically formatted; staff understands what Council wishes done; staff would like to go through the very specific Election Code requirements; and that her understanding of Council's vote is Council directed staff to bring back the Resolutions to put the Charter Amendment on the Ballot, which will be done in a timely fashion. Mayor Appezzato stated a discussion on whom will write the Ballot Argument is needed; Council should receive clarification on the options when the Resolutions are brought back to Council; whether Council should write an Argument or request a Staff Report is confusing; staff should recommend what is believed to be best for the community. (98-104) Resolution Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the County Clerk to Render Specified Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 7 Services to the City Relating to the Conduct of the Consolidated Special Municipal Election June 2, 1998. Not adopted. [See comments under Paragraph No. 98-103.] (98-105) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding a New Section 4-25 (Parking Prohibited in Front Yards and Side Yards of Residentially Zoned Property) to Chapter IV (Offenses and Public Safety). Held over. The City Manager stated that this item was pulled from the Agenda because there were a couple of concerns identified by staff. Mayor Appezzato stated that the item would be opened to allow public discussion, and the continued to a later date. Brian Hatoff, Alameda, stated that he was in favor of the ordinance; the matter before Council is a quality of life issue; the problem [of parked cars in front yards] is getting worse all the time; it is an insult to those who try to maintain an attractive neighborhood; said ordinance will require consistent enforcement; and urged Council adopt the Ordinance when staff has addressed interpretational issues. * * * Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Adopting the Community Improvement Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project. [See Paragraph No. 98-88 of Minutes for Joint/Concurrent City Council/Community Improvement Commission Meeting held at 7:25 p.m. prior to the Regular Council meeting.] * * * ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Com ent) None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) (98-1 6) Mayor Appezzato stated that he had received a communication from Senator Barbara Lee requesting Council support for Senate Bill 1615; SB 1615 would help conversion of the Naval Base; and requested the communication to be agendized for Council endorsement at the next Council Meeting. (98-107) Councilmember Daysog stated that he had received a letter from Vince San Nicolas, Alameda resident, inquiring about City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998 policy regarding private contractors' responsibilities as they relate to the care and replacement of trees; and requested an-off- agenda staff report regarding contractors' responsibilities and specifications. 4 I S id There being no further business before the Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 10:57 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Df.ne B. Felsch, C C City Clerk The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 17, 1998