1991-12-17 Regular CC Minutes395
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
DECEMBER 17, 1991
The meeting convened at 7:46 p.m. with President Withrow presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Roth. Reverend
Robert Keller gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, Roth,
and President Withrow - 5.
Absent: None.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ACTIONS
President Withrow announced that at the Special Council Meeting held
at 6:30 p.m., Council adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
91-854 Personnel Matters, Appointment, Employment, and Evaluation of
Appointed City Employee, pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 of
the Brown Act: President Withrow stated Council gave further
instructions to the City's negotiators.
91-855 Labor Relations, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Government Code
Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act: President Withrow stated no action
was taken.
91-856 Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant to Subsection (b)
of Government Code Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: President
Withrow stated no action was taken.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Roth moved approval oi the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
*91-857 Minutes of tha Regular Council Meetings of November 19, anC,
December 3, 1991, and Special Council Meeting of November 19, 1991.
Approved.
*91-858 Report from Public Works Director recommending acceptance of
the work by Smith-R.:Ice Company for the design and construction of
Alameda Gateway Ferry Terminal Facilities, No. P.W. 10-90-16.
Accepted.
*91-859 Report from Community Develcpment Director, regarding
withdrawal from PropoEed Consortium Form of Governance and Support for
Alameda County's Application to serve as the Service Delivery Area for
the Federal Job Training Partnership Act Program. Accepted.
December 17, 4.991
6
*91-860 Report from Community Development Director, regarding Annual
Report of the Community Improvement Commission to the City Council and
the State Controller. Accepted.
*91-861 Report from Finance Director submitting Investment Portfolio
for period ending November 30, 1991. Accepted.
*91-862 Resolution No. 12179 "Accepting Grant of Easement for Storm
Drainage purposes to City of Alameda from Harbor Bay Isle Associates."
Adopted.
*91-863 Resolution No. 12180 "Authorizing the filing of Applications
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for allocation of
Transportation Development Act Funds for Fiscal Year 1992-93."
Adopted.
*91-864 Final Passage of Ordinance No. 2573, N.S. "Amending the
Alameda Municipal Code by adding Chapter 14 to Title X Pertaining to
Earthquake Hazard Reduction in existing Unreinforced Masonry Bearing
Wall Buildings." Adopted.
*91-865 Bills certified by the City Manager to be true and correct,
were ratified in the sum of $2,216,981.72.
AGENDA ITEMS
91-866 Written Communication from John Barni, Jr., Alameda, regarding
termination of Reclamation District No. 2105.
Ron Lappa, Alameda, stated he was present on behalf of the Community
of Harbor Bay Isle Homeowners Association which endorses the staff
recommendation to get everyone together and work [the matter] out.
Councilmember Camicia moved staff recommendation [to direct staff to
meet with representatives of Reclamation District, Community of Harbor
Bay Isle Homeowners Association, and Harbor Bay Isle Associates to
bring back a proposal equitable to all parties to maintain protective
devices (dike, etc.) for Harbor Bay Isle Fill Area]. Councilmember
Lucas seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
91-867 Public Hearing regarding increase of Fixture Fees for Plumbing
Permits and Mechanical Permits and Resolution No. 12181, establishing
Fixture Fees for Plumbing Permits and Mechanical Permits.
Councilmember Lucas stated those [Fixture] Fees have not been
increased for 14 years, it is time to do that; and she will support
the increases.
Councilman Arnerich stated he does not believe in these difficult
times that Council should be increasing rates of any type; [the fee
increase] would be an additional burden; the recession will be
lasting longer than originally projected; and he will vote no.
Councilmember Roth discussed the difference in the current and
proposed fees with the Public Works Director, who noted the fee would
depend on e.g., the number of fixtures.
December 17, 1991
397
In response to an inquiry of Councilman Arnerich, the Public Works
Director stated fee increases would partially offset inspection costs
which are not currently covered; however, the money would go directly
to the General Fund and Council will determine the allocations.
Councilmember Lucas moved staff recommendation [to establish Fixture
Fees by adopting resolution]. Councilmember Roth seconded the motion
which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Lucas, Roth, and President Withrow - 3. Noes: Councilmembers
Arnerich and Camicia - 2. Absent: None.
91-868 Appeal of a Planning Board approval for a one-year extension of
Planned Development Amendment, PDA-90-7, for Ballena Isle Hotel.
Appellant: Ballena Isle Hotel Associates.
* Written Communication from Stan Shane, Alameda, regarding
specific performance by Ballena Isle Marina.
Steve Atkinson, Baker & McKenzie, Attorney for Ballena Isle Marina
(BIM), stated reasons Council is being requested to eliminate the
condition Planning Board added at August 26th Meeting to its one-year
extension of the PDA: the driveway currently is usable and provides
adequate access to parking lot; the May, 1990, Agreement between
Ballena Isle and City does not require driveway be upgraded; the
required improvements are not inexpensive; the upgrade is not
required by the lease with City; the Board's condition is not related
to approved PDA; the road is temporary and when the PDA is
implemented, a main access will be built along marina side of island.
Councilmember Lucas stated she would like something done to road when
recession is past, even if hotel is not built.
Mr. Atkinson clarified BIM has done what is required in Agreement;
if there is disagreement on handling of road, that would best be
considered under the Lease.
Councilman Arnerich discussed BIM's responsibilities regarding road
with Mr. Atkinson, who stated a full standard roadway will be built,
and along the water a large pedestrian area, as part of the PDA.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's request, the City Manager
responded an Agreement exists which provides for constructing a
driveway; BIM put down a chip seal which did not last.
In response to President Withrow, Mr. Atkinson stated he is not
certain $10,000 can be allocated for roadway work, and agreed there is
a responsibility [for inaintaining roadway] under the lease.
Councilman Arnerich stated he has not seen improvement in the road;
and the Public Works Director stated he has been trying to obtain
improvement.
Mr. Atkinson stated he is aware the potholes were filled on at least
one occasion in August and September.
December 17, 1991
Councilmember Lucas stated she agrees with Mr. Atkinson that adding
this condition on the Planned Development does not make sense, but the
road is not adequate; if the hotel is not built, the road will
deteriorate further; she would be willing to give extra time if there
is economic hardship but would like some agreement that a driveable
road is part of their lease obligation and would like to hear that
acknowledged if Council agrees to remove the condition.
President Withrow inquired, if Council chooses to exclude this item
from the approval, how would Council retain its prerogatives to ensure
the City has a useable roadway.
The City Attorney stated in order to delete Condition 5 from the
Appeal, Council should adopt findings and conditions set forth in
Attachment 8; as part of doing that, Council cannot require Mr.
Atkinson at this point to affirm the commitment under the lease,
however, if he would volunteer to make that statement, that could be
part of the record; the option is to direct the City Attorney to
pursue the options under the lease, up to and including termination of
the lease for breach of the condition for failing to maintain tho
road.
President Withrow inquired if Council has sufficient grounds, if
action is not taken, to call for default of the lease.
The City Attorney responded that option can be pursued; forfeitures
of lease are difficult to maintain, however, if we did have a
statement that is a term and condition of the lease, the argument
would be about what is the level of maintenance; Mr. Atkinson
insists the roadway is maintained adequately, the City insists it is
not, and that would be the court fight for forfeiture of the lease.
President Withrow questioned if Mr. Atkinson could volunteer [as
noted by City Attorney]; and Mr. Atkinson replied his client could
not authorize him to do that because he would be volunteering money
Appellant does not have at this point.
Councilman Arnerich discussed the Agreement between Ballena Isle and
the City with regard to construction and maintenance of roadway and
stated he does not see any upkeep; the driveway is not acceptable to
him.
Councilmember Roth stated he agrees with Councilmember Lucas that two
separate issues exist; one is to maintain, under the lease, and the
other is the proposal to build the hotel; for Planning Board to place
a condition on someone trying to make something better is unfair; he
drove the road, and the way to maintain a gravel road is to put gravel
in the holes; if the road were paved it might become a drag strip;
the City has had roads in worse shape; the issues are separate, and
the condition should not have been placed on the developer of the
hotel; if Council is not happy with the maintenance, that should go
under the lease conditions, and that is a separate issue.
Councilmember Roth moved Attachment No. 8 [of Staff Report which
states Condition No. 1 of Planning Board Resolution No. 2211 is not
required].
December 17, 1991
9
Councilman Arnerich stated he believes the roadway is poor and should
be fixed.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Lucas, Roth and
President Withrow - 4. Noes: Councilman Arnerich - 1. Absent:
None.
Councilmember Lucas stated to the Applicant that Council would like an
improvement in the road and will support Public Works Director and
City Attorney in enforcing terms of the lease.
President Withrow stated the City Manager will probably take that for
his guidance from the Council, to pursue that under the leasehold.
91-869 Report from Vice-Mayor Lucas transmitting the Association of
Bay Area Governments' Position on Regional Governance.
Councilmember Lucas stated the Bay Area forum proposal was not
followed; consensus of the local governments is that current
organizations, e.g., ABAG, Bay Area Air Quality Management, had not
done their jobs well to expand their jurisdiction; the desire is for:
efficiencies, possible combinations, but no increased powers, no
increased revenues, representation by local elected officials rather
than appointed civil servants; she believes the resolution is good.
Councilmember Roth commended Councilmember Lucas and inquired if she
had concerns about the resolution, to which she replied that she
wanted to make the Council aware that other communities are just as
critical of the idea of a big regional government at additional cos'.:
to the taxpayer without taxpayer input through election process.
Councilman Arnerich commended Councilmember Lucas's work on this
matter and in keeping the City informed. President Withrow agreed.
Councilmember Lucas moved to support the ABAG resolution.
Councilmember Roth seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
91-870 Reports from Chair of the Economic Development Commission EEDC]
and Community Development Director regarding request for financial
assistance submitted by the Chamber of Commerce.
James Pittard, EDC, expressed support for the recommendation of the
EDC Chair and read the recommendation that Council establish minimal
levels of financial support for the Chamber, provide start-up funding,
and the Chamber be monitored during the start-up period.
Andy Pagano, Member, Board of Directors, Chamber of Commerce, Board of
Directors, Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA), stated over 25
years ago the Chamber approached City Council with a plan to charge
transient tax on hotel and motel rooms; Council agreed and promised
Chamber 50% of revenue; the Chamber has not received that tax;
Chamber should receive a portion of it; and requested the Chamber be
given another chance.
December 17, 1991
C
Del Blaylock, Board Member, GABA, stated GABA has grown from its
foiluation about six years ago to 145 members; if Council removes the
funds from GABA, as recommended by the Community Development Director,
it would be a mistake; he is not opposed to the Chamber, but does not
think taking the money away from GABA which is needed for advertising,
is fair, and it would take away businesses from Alameda.
M.J. Brandenberger, President, Chamber of Commerce, stated the
Chamber appreciates efforts of staff; direct and indirect assistance
is necessary for Chamber which would work with the City developing a
program to increase membership, attract new businesses, and work with
business associations.
Greg Beattie, Alameda, Board of Directors, Chamber of Commerce, stated
Chamber wants to help represent businesses in town that currently do
not have adequate voice in City operation and business community
organization; the Chamber needs help and helping the Chamber is
reasonable during a period when it needs to promote businesses.
William Berg, President, GABA, stated funding to GABA has receded each
year; taking the remainder away, would end GABA; the Chamber must
focus on the entire City while GABA works to help the very small
business stations; and described assistance GABA has given small
businesses, including station signs for historic business districts.
Councilmember Lucas discussed the annual membership dues and noted a
raise of $10 a year might be helpful.
Mr. Berg replied that would raise about $1500 and put GABA where it
was a year ago when it received $8000 from the City, this year there
is only $6500; also, GABA doubled its dues last year.
Councilmember Roth stated the matter came to Council prematurely; he
was appointed by Council to work with business associations; a number
of things need to be worked on, and at the same time, Chamber funding
can be looked at; he questions why transient tax did not go back into
the business community, why businesses, which pay property taxes, must
also pay other charges, fees, and collect sales tax, yet nothing is
set aside to go back to the business community; he would like a
formula considered in the budget, whether a percentage of business
license fees or whatever, and would like this matter delayed until
there is opportunity to work this out.
Councilmember Roth stated he would make that a motion.
Camicia seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich stated businesses should receive a
favors putting money into Chamber and business districts.
Councilmember
return; he
Councilmember Lucas stated Council should support the Chamber; a
strong business community is needed and a Chamber is part of that.
Councilman Arnerich inquired when the matter would come back; and
Councilmember Roth replied probably in Maich, [1992].
December 17, 1991
401
Council discussed when the matter should return to Council,
considering mid-year budget adjustments and Chamber needs and goals.
Councilmember Roth stated the City would be benefitted by a thorough
and appropriate job being done so the Chamber will be successful.
Councilman Arnerich suggested an amendment to the motion, that the
matter be expedited [quickly], rather than setting a March date.
Councilmember Roth agreed that the motion include that the matter be
brought back as quickly as possible.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
President Withrow inquired if the Chamber would agree to add to their
purpose, an eighth objective, and an additional goal, to sell Alameda.
91-871 Report from City Manager recommending leasing 1532 Webster
Street for the proposed City Hall Annex.
M.J. Brandenberger, Chamber of Commerce, stated the Chamber supports
the City Manager's proposal for the Annex and would welcome working
with the City on the matter.
Del Blaylock, Alameda, stated the Annex would be vital to the area,
and having the other offices, e.g., Police annex, Chamber, located
there, would also be beneficial.
Wil Garfinkle, Alameda, stated he is not against Webster Street
facility, discussed cost of preparing building for occupancy, and
square footage; inquired about rehabilitation, staffing, former
Thrifty and Island Market sites, with parking lease options; he is
not sure, at this economic time, the plan is viable.
The City Manager responded parking spaces could be allocated at City's
lot around corner from 1532 Webster; sites noted by Mr. Garfinkle
are much larger than City could use; low negotiated rent is available
for current property; an upgraded URN building would accrue to
benefit of the City; City's presence would be boon to Webster Street
and City; staffing is being looked at for additional position and
funding, at present, is from existing budget.
Councilman Arnerich questioned the length of the 20-year lease, and
the City Manager replied it does not need to be a twenty-year lease;
but is to City's interest to allow time to amortize improvements; the
proposal is to have the right to sublease if the City at some point
wishes to change the use.
Councilmember Roth inquired who inspected the building; the Public
Works Director noted a structural engineer did, to determine estimated
cost, particularly the URM portion.
President Withrow inquired if the [Annex] would qualify for holding
City Meetings currently restricted to City Hall, to which the City
Manager replied affirmatively.
December 17, 1991
404
The Interim Planning Director stated money is in budget for revising
zoning ordinance text; cost for consultants to incorporate revised
design review guidelines into zoning ordinance revision could be about
$20,000.
President Withrow inquired what the trend is in other cities. The
Interim Planning Director replied Alameda probably has more thorough
design review than most cities, understandable because of its many
historic buildings; clear guidelines are important; some cities, as
included in proposed ordinance, offer opportunity for sign-off at
counter to eliminate noticing which causes month's delay.
Councilmember Camicia stated Councilmember Roth is correct that past
design review has been somewhat arbitrary for some; but also agrees
with comments by Board of Realtors; perhaps matter could be held over
to incorporate thoughts from comments.
Councilman Arnerich stated clarification is needed; and discussed
with Ms. Hoepner, Board of Realtors, design review in conjunction
with homeowners' associations and individual homeowners who are not
part of a homeowners' association, and its attendant Conditions,
Covenants & Restrictions (CC&Rs).
Ms. Hoepner pointed out guidelines are needed for neighborhoods not
under CC&Rs or neighborhood committees.
Councilmember Camicia moved to continue.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's inquiry regarding update of
Historic Buildings Study List, the Interim Planning Director replied
staff is working toward refining and paring down the List which should
be ready in about two months; since so much information has come in
from concerned people who did not present these thoughts to Planning
Board, Council may wart to send matter back to Planning Board to sift
through all the ideas.
Councilmember Camicia stated that is a better idea and he will amend
his motion to do that. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich stated he would vote for that motion.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas and President Withrow - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Roth - 1. Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS
91-875 Consideration of rescinding Council's action referring the
Holiday Season Programs matter for further study. (Vice-Mayor Lucas)
Jon Rodgers, Alameda, stated the holiday spectacles are attractive to
many people; Council should stand up to those who would no longer
allow such displays.
Wil Garfinkle, Alameda, stated Christmas is not a secular event; he
does not want to abolish Christmas trees nor impose on Christian
December 17, 1991
405
religions, nor be imposed upon; hopes Council will honor original
motion to refer matter to SSHRB for review and return, not rescind;
and he would help fund tree on private property.
Councilmember Lucas stated she raised issue because a young girl
talked about the matter last Christmas; City Hall [holiday) tree is a
government activity; she suggested continuing because Council is
following City Attorney's guidelines, eliminating religious Christian
references, and the community enjoys the celebration; the celebration
is for family and community, lighting up a winter night.
Mr. Garfinkle noted his participation in Christian services; stated
if Council applied itself, perhaps another location could be found for
the celebration.
Councilman Arnerich stated he believes in what Council is doing; the
City Hall [holiday] tree has nothing signifying a religious holiday;
the holiday is acknowledged; most cities have observance; he will
continue to vote for it.
President Withrow stated arguments on both sides have merit; City
government is not a "Christian" government but is for all City people
irrespective of religion; he believes in separation of church and
state; Council is trying to achieve middle ground; during ceremony,
the teiiu Christian was not used; he hopes December can be looked at
as month of transition into new year, festivities can lift people up
during dark time of year, focus on positive things, treat each other
differently in final month of year; he would like to see that as
middle ground, to conscientiously focus in that direction.
Councilmember Camicia stated there is a rich mythology across all
cultures at this time of year; someone could review [the
possibilities] to sea if there cannot be incorporation of symbols,
mythologies, and other theologies from other cultures; and people
would enjoy [the result).
Councilman Arnerich noted a newspaper article stated a painting for
Berkeley City Hall was removed quickly because people were upset that
it pictured symbols of a number of religions; he believes
Councilmember Camicia' ,d suggestion would be advocating religions; the
holiday season is universal around the world.
Councilmember Lucas moved to rescind Council's previous action.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Lucas, Roth and President
Withrow - 4. Noes: Councilmember Camicia - 1. Absent: None.
91-876 Reconsideration of investigation of the Alameda Police
Department by Alameda County Sheriff Charles Plummer.
Jon Rodgers, Alameda, stated he supports Mayor and Chief of Police in
their positions on this matter; the Chief has confidence of his
colleagues: other Police Chiefs and Sheri.ff; the Chief followed due
process; and due process should apply for police as well as others.
Dennis Taylor, Alameda, stated he respects police; most are
December 17, 1991
406
dedicated, highly-skilled professionals, very special people and must
meet higher standard of conduct on job; perhaps outside investigator
should review; and he hopes the bottom line will be clear that racial
prejudice will not be tolerated in this community.
Reverend Betty Williams, Alameda stated she respects Police; knows
there are some good officers on the force; some have come into her
home to work with her foster children; she favors an investigation
for the benefit of the citizens and the good officers.
Councilmember Lucas stated racism cannot be tolerated in Police
Department and puts her faith in Mayor's Committee, a racially mixed
committee including 21 residents, to provide guidelines on training
Police; Council requested FBI, State Attorney General, United States
Attorney, and County District Attorney, to investigate, but were
turned down because no crimes were committed, no civil rights
violated, so investigation does not make sense; training makes sense,
that is what she supports, and will vote against investigation.
Councilmember Camicia stated Council voted for concept; subsequently,
agencies and the Sheriff were requested by Council to come and
investigate, and all turned Council down; following rejections, he
asked Sheriff Plummer if he would reconsider and he said he would if
requested by Council; he has the right to come even without Council's
permission and if he nought the Police Department was out of control,
he would already be here; so this is an opportunity to close the
chapter.
Councilman Arnerich stated a number of weeks ago [the outcome] might
have been different; Sheriff Plummer would have been good
[investigator]; the Chief of Police brought the incident to the City;
many things have bean done in the last few months, e.g., the
resolutions, cultural diversity program, Mayors' Committee;
proceeding with an investigation would take time; people believe
things are moving in the right direction, and at this point, he will
not vote for the investigation.
Councilmember Camicia moved to bring in Sheriff Plummer.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
91-877 Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, inquired about Reclamation District
2105 elections and representatives; the City Manager stated staff
will be meeting with representatives of the District, Homeowners'
Association and Harbor Bay Isle Associates and will report back to
Council [with a proposal on continued maintenance].
91-878 Shirley Cummihs, Alameda, stated a silent majority accepts
Police Officer Jones' apology, and officers who made comments [racial
slurs] should not be dismissed from the Police Department.
NEW BUSINESS (continued)
91-879 Councilmember Roth stated a child was hit at 5th and Central
December 17, 1991
407
Avenue; would like the Traffic Advisory Committee to consider stop
signs and report back to Council on the matter.
91-880 Councilmember Roth commented that the sidewalk and grate
located at the Washington Park gate has been adequately fixed.
ADJOURNMENT
Following Holiday Wishes by President Withrow and Councilmembers, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:43 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
DINE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance.
December 17, 1991