1990-05-01 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
MAY 1. 1990
The meeting convened at 7:45 p.m. (following the Annual Meeting of
the Community Improvement Commission) with Acting President
Arnerich presiding. Councilmember Camicia led the Pledge of
Allegiance. The invocation was given by Reverend Robert Keller.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Absent:
Note:
Councilmembers Camicia, Thomas, Withrow,
and Acting President Arnerich - 4.
Mayor Corica - 1.
Mayor Corica arrived and took his seat on
the dais to preside over the meeting, at
approximately 9:00 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S), if any.
Vice -Mayor Arnerich announced Council adjourned to Closed Session
prior to the regular meeting and took the following action:
90 -294 Labor Relations pursuant to Subsection (a) of Government
Code Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act: Council discussed status
and gave directions to the City negotiators to proceed.
90 -295 City v. Ballena Isle Marina pursuant to Subsection 54956.9
(b) of the legal counsel section of the Brown Act: Council
authorized execution of an agreement.
90 -296 Real Estate negotiations concerning four parcels of vacant
land located on Buena Vista Avenue, pursuant to Section 54956.8 of
the Brown Act: Council will adjourn to Closed Session following
the regular meeting to discuss the matter.
90 -297 Employee performance evaluation pursuant to Section 54957 of
the Brown Act: Council will adjourn to Closed Session following
the regular meeting to discuss the matter.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Thomas registered a No vote for (90 -324) resolution
supporting Bay Bridge Toll Surcharge State legislation [which was
subsequently, following discussion, tabled]; and requested removal
of (90 -328) Bills, from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember
Withrow requested (90 -317) report regarding Mayor's trip expenses,
and (90 -318) report concerning removal of all parking meters, be
removed from the Consent Calendar. Acting President Arnerich
announced a request from the public [John Scott Graham] for the
removal from Consent Calendar of (90 -324) resolution supporting Bay
Bridge Toll Surcharge State legislation, and (90 -319) report
regarding submittal for supplemental Regional Measure 1 - 3%
monies; and a request from staff that ( *90 -306) the ordinance
regarding Contract with Public Employees' Retirement System, be
carried over to the regular Council Meeting on May 15, 1990.
May 1, 1990
134
Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*90 -298 From Assistant City Manager regarding Earl Fry Green
Renovation - Phase II. Accepted.
*90 -299 From Community Development Director regarding prohibitions
and financial disclosure requirements under the Community
Redevelopment Law. Accepted.
*90 -300 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending acceptance
of the work by George E. Masker, Inc. for exterior painting of
the Mastick Senior Center. Accepted.
RESOLUTIONS
*90 -301 Resolution No. 11954 "Opposing AB4135 (Eaves) and SB2405
(Kopp) concerning airport noise." Adopted.
*90 -302 Resolution No. 11955 "Supporting Assembly Bill 145
concerning the California Park, Recreation, and Wildlife
Enhancement Act of 1990." Adopted.
*90 -303 Resolution No. 11956 "Supporting the Cypress Street
Corridor Transit Subcommittee's List of Transit Projects for
submittal to FHWA and CALTRAN for interim funding until a permanent
Cypress Corridor replacement project is constructed." Adopted.
*90 -304 Resolution No. 11957 "Authorizing California Energy
Commission Siting and Permit Assistance Grant Application."
Adopted.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
*90 -305 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Authorizing the sale of surplus
land located at Calhoun Street and Fernside Boulevard." Introduced.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE
*90 -306 Ordinance No.
Contract between the
Employees' Retirement
Alameda." Not heard.
Meeting.
MINUTES
, N.S. "Authorizing an amendment to the
Board of Administration of the Public
System and the City Council of the City of
Re- agendized for May 15, 1990, Council
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the Minutes of the Regular
Council Meeting of April 17, 1990. Councilmember Withrow seconded
the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
May 1, 1990
Councilmembers
Noes: None.
Councilmember
meeting.
135
Camicia, Withrow and Acting President Arnerich - 3.
Absent: Mayor Corica - 1. Abstentions:
Thomas - 1 [due to absence from the April 17, 1990,
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
90 -307 Proclamation declaring May, 1990, as Huntington's Disease
Awareness Month.
Acting President Arnerich read the proclamation and presented same
to Jack and Jacquelyn Frye, Alameda residents, Huntington's Disease
Society of America, Northern California Chapter (located 1012
Galvin Street, Oakland, 94602).
90 -308 Proclamation declaring May 1, 1990, as Youth in Government
Day.
Acting President Arnerich read the proclamation.
The Management Analyst introduced foreign and local students, and
Acting President Arnerich presented a Certificate of Participation
for Youth in Government Day to each student.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
90 -309 From D. L. Newell, Alameda, requesting a dog park or dog
run, with suggestions for dog -owner responsibilities.
* From David H. Altschuler, Alameda, concerning dog run areas in
Alameda, and submitting petitions for same.
Kathleen Henderson, 892 Union Street, stated a dog run monitored by
those persons who use the run, merits Council's attention;
suggested using a 6:00 to 8 :00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m.
timeframe, and former Doolittle Landfill site.
Barbara Kahn, 467 Central, submitted pictures of a Berkeley dog
park; stated there are a number of potential areas in Alameda for
a dog run.
Jim Johnston, 1415 Broadway, spoke in favor of a dog run.
Francie Farinet, 2404 Santa Clara, submitted a list of 84
additional signatures petitioning for a dog park, introduced her
dog Sunny, stated she believes it is necessary to have a place for
responsible dog owners to take their dogs; Animal Control could
cite any person who does not clean up properly; and the cost of
the park could be offset by dog -owner fees.
David Altschuler, 3015 Bayview Drive, stated about 600 persons
signed petition for a dog run; suggested off -leash hours in some
parks, perhaps 6:00 to 8:00 a.m., and 9:00 to Midnight; [perhaps
certain locations could have fenced areas for dog runs]; some
cities do not pay liability insurance as dog -run users assume any
risk involved.
May 1, 1990
136
Bruce Jancin, 3254 Fairview Avenue, stated he believes the idea of
a dog run is fine and off -hour use at present parks is an even
better idea; and urged Council support one of the ideas submitted.
Matt Dlugozimski, 1365 Versailles Avenue, spoke in favor of
designated hours for dogs to be off -leash in parks, and in favor of
former Doolittle Landfill site [for use as a dog run]; and would
appreciate support of Council.
Dolly Newell, 47 Garden Road, stated dog parks should be fenced;
she is willing to pay fee; and Alameda should have dog parks.
David Plummer, 1401 High Street, stated he is not sure City can
afford to build a dog run or dog park with proper enclosure or can
afford staff to operate it; but believes dog owners and their
animals should be able to use parks; a time period early in the
morning and late at night for dogs without leashes would be ideal.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the communication;
directed staff analyse suggestions from speakers, develop a report,
and report to Council in a month or so; believes cost will be a
tremendous factor, and perhaps opening parks in morning and evening
will be a solution.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion.
Acting President Arnerich requested City Manager briefly explain
the problems inherent with the former Doolittle Landfill site.
The City Manager noted the Doolittle Landfill was closed at the
requirement of the State about 1981; it was necessary to place an
impervious cover over the landfill to prevent rain from going into
the landfill; pipes vent the methane gas to a flaring station to
be flared off at a central point; if persons were to damage the
cover, there would be a problem with the Water Quality Control
Board; the area needs to be protected and controlled.
Acting President Arnerich agreed with Councilmembers Camicia and
Withrow that staff, including Recreation Commission, Animal
Shelter, Public Works and City Attorney, should look at the matter;
believes citizens could help out by getting information and
regulations, both positive and negative, from other cities.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.
APPEALS
90 -310 Consideration of Appeal of Planning Board decision to deny
Use Permit, UP- 89 -21, to allow the establishment of an attorney's
office as required in Zoning Ordinance Section 11- 1319(a), and
Variance, V -89 -9, to allow the provision of nine parking spaces for
an attorney's office, whereas ten off - street parking spaces are
required under Zoning Ordinance Section 11- 14C5(c)(2). The office
would be located within a R -5, General Residential District at 2156
Central Avenue. Applicant /Appellant: William J. Berg.
(Continued from April 17, 1990, Council Meeting)
May 1, 1990
137
Councilmember Thomas stated two persons had called her regarding
the matter and she believes she should abstain and requested the
City Attorney's opinion.
In response to Acting President Arnerich's question if the callers
discussed the case with her, Councilmember Thomas indicated they
had.
The City Attorney noted that, according to the Alameda Municipal
Code, Section 2 -117, Subsection 6, no member of the Council shall
discuss the evidence applicable to an Appeal with
non - Councilmembers while such matter is pending except in open
meeting of the Council; so the question is whether or not the
discussion pertained to evidence applicable to an Appeal.
Councilmember Thomas stated the callers indicated they had already
talked to other Councilmembers.
Acting President Arnerich stated he received a phone call from the
Appellant, advised the Appellant immediately there could be no
discussion of the Appeal with the Appellant; upon the Appellant's
coming to his EArnerich's] office, the Appellant was handed a copy
of the ordinance, accepted that, and left; and if anyone else has
been approached by either Mr. Berg or his representative Mr.
Kennedy, perhaps that should be so stated.
Councilmember Camicia stated in the past, Council has been able to
discuss an issue from a historical perspective, and inquired if
that counts in this case.
The City Attorney clarified the Municipal Code states "shall
discuss the evidence applicable to an Appeal with
non- Councilmembers," so the question is whether or not evidence
applicable to the Appeal was discussed.
Councilmember Camicia suggested that since a question has been
raised perhaps the matter could be tabled for two weeks, and looked
at to see who is entitled to vote and who is not.
Acting President Arnerich stated he believed that would be
appropriate.
Councilmember Camicia stated in the past anything which has to do
with the history of an issue has been alright to discuss; but new
evidence is not okay and that has been made clear on a number of
occasions; if there is to be a legal determination, he believes
Council should ask staff to take a look, find out specifically who
can vote and who cannot; and Council can return to the Appeal when
Council receives the legal determination.
Councilmember Withrow stated he was approached on this issue and he
advised callers that Council is not in a position to discuss any
items of substance with respect to a hearing; the three parties
who called recognized that, thanked him and they terminated
discussion.
Acting President Arnerich stated because Councilmember Thomas has
May 1, 1990
138
disqualified herself from the proceedings and because of the
recommendation of Councilmember Camicia, the matter could be
carried over for two weeks.
The city Manager commented the matter would be reagendized and the
City Attorney could address Councilmember Camicia's concern during
the two -week period.
James T. Kennedy, 2447 Santa Clara, stated Mr. Berg could not
attend the May 15 Council meeting.
Acting President Arnerich commented the Appeal should then be
agendized for June 5, 1990, Council Meeting.
Randall R. Reed, 2159 Central Avenue, requested that until Mr.
Berg is allowed to proceed, that he cease and desist his activity
at 2156 Central Avenue.
The City Manager stated he would address the matter on May 2nd.
90 -311 Consideration of Appeal of Planning Board approval of
Negative Declaration (IS- 89 -16) and Planned Development Amendment,
(PDA- 90 -1), for the removal of 31 Poplar Trees and 10 Weeping
Willows from the common area of Lantern Bay, Harbor Bay Isle.
Applicant: Lantern Bay Homeowners' Association. Appellant: Mr.
Robert Wood. (Continued from April 17, 1990, Council Meeting)
The Council engaged in a brief discussion on the subject of public
input during an Appeal.
Robert M. Wood, 259 Oyster Pond Road, Appellant, [Planning Board
Member] stated he has no new evidence, voted for the issue [at
Planning Board] but upon reflection, recalled the original concept
of the intended urban forest in Harbor Bay Isle (HBI) and having
voted recently to remove 185 trees from another HBI area. He is
concerned about what this ultimately may mean to the whole HBI
landscaping concept; and requested Council refer the matter back
to Planning Board for more discussion, and to see if there are
alternative experiments that might be tested, to allow the trees
but prevent the damage; if more research yields the solution that
the trees must be cut down, he most likely will vote for the motion
again.
President Corica arrived and took his seat at the dais. He
commented that he was late because there had been a hearing at
Chipman School on the Naval base closure matter at which time he
also presented the position paper of the City Council.
Return to Paragraph 90 -311
Ron Lappa, 140 Gainsborough, Lantern Bay Homeowners' Association,
stated the decision of the Planning Board was 6 to 1; regarding
urban forest, the trees will be replaced; he does not believe the
May 1, 1990
139
removal is a drastic measure; there are only four years of growth
in the current trees, and the homeowners are looking at long term
benefits; and requested the matter not be sent back to the
Planning Board.
Councilmember Withrow commented on the type of trees under
discussion, and noted the replacement of the trees will be totally
paid for by the homeowners; and moved that Council approve and
support the Planning Board's approval and allow Lantern Bay
Homeowners to have the tree - replacement program carried out.
Councilmember Thomas commented that, out of respect for Robert
Wood, his work on the Planning Board for a number of years, and
because of the fact that he has appealed the matter, she would like
to see, before the trees are removed, the Appeal go back to the
Planning Board.
Councilmember Camicia stated he would agree it would need to go
back to the Planning Board if the homeowners were not going to
replant, however they are going to replant and there is an
established City Street Tree Plan of all the trees that can be
used, and Council would simply be approving a decision which allows
a certain kind of tree to be removed and a new kind of tree to be
replanted.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow and President Corica - 4.
Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
90 -312 From City Manager transmitting the Management Audit of the
Alameda Police Department.
Maria Zornes, 1027 Kingston Lane, spoke of her respect for the
Police Department, and of individual policemen and related a
problem that occurred with a particular officer and canine.
The City Manager explained the background of the audit.
James Morrison, consultant, Ralph Anderson and Associates, stated
areas have been identified which can be more efficient in use of
resources, and recommendations have been made; cautioned that an
audit report identifies opportunities to improve but does not
identify all of the good things that are going on in an
organization, nor does it acknowledge the number of dedicated
people working within the organization.
President Corica stated the consultants have done what Council
requested in providing suggestions for improvement; and the
process is a healthy one.
Councilman Arnerich stated he was very pleased that uniformed
personnel received very high marks throughout the City; it was
70 +% "excellent" and a very high percentage of "very good "; the
audit is a very good management tool, and is a mechanism for use by
the Police Department to improve; and believes the audit has
May 1, 1990
140
accomplished what Council wanted.
Dr. Roland Dart, Ralph Anderson and Associates, stated he believes
the Council should be proud of the quality of the individual police
officers and civilian employees in Alameda.
Councilmember Camicia stated he was very pleased to read the audit;
he would now like to have staff implement recommendations during
perhaps the next three years; and then have an accreditation done.
President Corica stated he believes responsibility falls on the
City Manager to make sure some of the recommendations are
implemented, and downstream, Council could possibly take a look at
what Councilmember Camicia is suggesting.
Councilmember Arnerich moved acceptance of the report.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -313 From City Manager regarding creation of a Port
Department.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, made suggestions
the Port Authority, and use of the Naval Base property.
Christopher Hanson, Alameda, stated he supports the City Manager's
recommendation.
President Corica stated he would not support a Port Authority
similar to the Port of Oakland as it reinvests its money in itself
and the City of Oakland receives little; Alameda is getting a
start with the Port Authority and before taking any drastic step,
more time should be given to evaluate and produce a plan suitable
to Alameda's needs; and he believes the City Manager's
recommendation is a good one at this time.
Councilmember Withrow stated he agrees wholeheartedly; he does not
believe what is in place has been utilized; a lot of issues raised
in addressing the request for a department could be pursued within
the framework that currently exists.
Councilman Arnerich stated he also agrees, and believes the Port
Authority Task Force should be retained to advise Council; and
moved acceptance of the recommendation. Councilmember Camicia
seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -314 From Community Development Director regarding Economic
Development Reorganization.
Al Wright, Raintree Studios, 1205 Park Street, Vice - President, Park
Street Business Association (PSBA), stated PSBA is basically in
favor of drafting an ordinance establishing an Economic Development
Commission (EDC), is concerned what affect the rest of the proposal
may have on PSBA, noting the expense of a full time staff person,
as proposed, would take a large portion of PSBA's BIA budget.
Christopher Hanson, Alameda, stated he agrees with the staff
Authority
regarding
May 1, 1990
141
report, believes the City has an opportunity to create through an
EDC, an avenue to aggressively, and with focus, pursue an economic
redevelopment or restructuring for the City as a whole, which can
only enhance its full economic stability.
Diane Coler -Dark, 2857 Jackson, President, Alameda Main Street
Project, stated she is encouraged and supports the organizational
structure proposed.
Councilman Arnerich moved the recommendation be accepted and staff
be directed to draft an ordinance establishing the Economic
Development Commission. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion
which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -315 From Public Works Director concerning information on
Propositions 108, 111 and 116 (information only).
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilman Arnerich stated he has a problem with taxes that are
supposed to be only for a certain period, but then are not dropped
back, when the proposed amount of money is raised.
90 -316 From Acting Planning Director regarding City -wide
reclassification of properties zoned R -3 Garden Residential, R -4
Neighborhood Residential, R -5 General Residential, and R -6 Hotel
Residential.
Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, commented the Housing Element states
the City is committed to pursue a broader range of residential
densities, which is opposite of what the report proposes, and the
time and expense of changing the Housing Element is not noted; and
discussed what would occur with respect to residential property if
Measure A is invalidated, relative to the issue of downzoning.
Madelyn Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, stated if the City is going to
consider new ordinances governing zoning, she would like the
ordinance dealing with destruction and rebuilding of apartments
following a disaster, looked at and changed so a property owner
could make a decision to tear down an old building and put back
what he had before, when a building is badly in need of
rehabilitation.
Don Patterson, 2424 Central Avenue, Alameda Board of Realtors,
stated there has not been an opportunity to review the matter
before Council, and the Board of Realtors would like to be
proactive and supportive of Measure A; concurs with Mr. Murphy's
comments regarding conflict with the Housing Element; and added
issues need to be resolved prior to taking any formal actions
toward downzoning.
John Barni, Sr., 1380 East Shore Drive, stated he concurs with the
Murphys' and Mr. Patterson's statements; and another item that
concerns him, if the downzoning goes into effect, is what happens
to a 10 -unit building in case of a catastrophe.
May 1, 1990
142
Christopher Hanson, Alameda, stated he appreciates concern
residential density, is concerned about economic stability
impact on future economic development; if zoning ordinances
reinforced, the Charter amendment [Measure A], Article XXVI of
Charter, can be repealed, which would give the Planning Board
City Council tools to adapt to specific situations.
for
and
are
the
and
President Corica stated Council does not know which [option] will
be addressed; and perhaps some of the things Council does are
going to be taken care of by voters; to think about repealing
Measure A is distasteful to him and, he believes, to thousands of
Alamedans.
Councilmember Camicia stated he believes President Corica is
correct that ultimately the voters are going to decide on Measure
A; it makes sense to him to take a look at Option B [amending
zoning regulations pertaining to minimum land area per dwelling
unit] and he agrees with speakers that existing properties should
be grandfathered in so there is no loss in a disaster.
President Corica stated his concern is if someone comes in and
decides they want to act on something that goes contrary to Measure
A; people in the general public will have concerns and will make
themselves heard but Council will look at the recommendations and
see which one it believes is best.
Councilmember Camicia stated the last couple of weeks have proven
that there is no ultimate protection for Measure A; if Measure A
is going to be kept, Council must act quickly to do it and looking
at the report, Option 13 looks like the right option.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to accept Option B.
President Corica stated he would not want to make a decision on
that right now; he will not move on any items here until Council
takes a look at it and also that the people have a chance to look
at what they want.
President Corica stated this is a report and recommendation, and he
is going to be voting no; there are going to be voters working on
this issue and he does not want to be locked into one
recommendation.
Councilmember Camicia stated he believes the voters
lot of time, expense and effort if Council moves
tonight.
The motion failed by the following voice
Councilmembers Camicia and Withrow - 2. Noes:
Arnerich, Thomas and President Corica - 3. Absent:
can be saved a
on Option B
vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers
None.
90-317 From City Manager recommending reimbursement to Mayor for
expenses incurred for trip to Washington, D.C.
Councilmember Withrow requested a report on the germane issues that
came up while the Mayor was in Washington, D.C.
May 1, 1990
143
President Corica stated he would do so under Unfinished Business.
Councilmember Withrow moved acceptance of the report and approval
of the recommendation that the Mayor be funded and reimbursed for
his travel costs. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which
was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas and Withrow - 4. Noes: None. Absent:
None. Abstentions: President Corica - 1.
90 -318 From Public Works Director concerning the Traffic Advisory
Committee report regarding impact of removal of all parking meters
from the City of Alameda (information only).
Councilmember Withrow requested the Finance Director to address the
parking meter revenue loss.
The Finance Director stated the reason a loss is reflected is
because parking fines are accounted for in a separate fund and goes
directly to support police activity.
Councilmember Withrow commented, of the revenue provided, $595,000
was generated by fines; and he does not believe this is a way to
motivate people to go back into the City's business districts; he
has real problems with fines generated in those funds, flowing back
to police activities; and would like to request Park Street
Business Association and West Alameda Business Association agendize
this issue at one of their future meetings so Council can have a
true picture of Association opinion as opposed to individual
spokespersons; and moved to accept the report.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -319 From Public Works Director regarding authorizing submittal
for supplemental Regional Measure 1 - 3% monies.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, expressed his concern that
such a small percentage of the tax collected in the Bay Area is
returned to the people of the Bay Area and he is not in favor of
taxing people more.
Councilmember Withrow moved acceptance. Councilmember Camicia
seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
RESOLUTIONS
90 -320 Resolution No. 11958 "Authorizing the issuance of revenue
bonds in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 in order to finance
certain facilities of KQED, Inc. of San Francisco and approving
related actions." (Continued from April 17, 1990, Council Meeting)
Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia stated he would continue to abstain in this
matter and removed himself from the dais.
Milton Chen, Director, Instructional Television, KQED, reviewed
May 1, 1990
144
educational activities, read and submitted letter from Adeline Cox;
urged Council consider educational services KQED provides and
submitted information regarding instructional programming.
Alice Cahn, Assistant to President of KQED, read letter from
Roxanne Clement, Media Center, Washington School, praising
instructional television; and submitted School Media Center
information regarding use of KQED educational programming.
Gene Zastrow, Executive Vice President of KQED, reviewed background
of matter, noted that, because of the size of the bond issue, the
City will receive about $190,000 over the 15 -year life of the bond.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated he applauds program of
KQED, but does not believe the City is being paid enough.
Councilmember Withrow stated from a finance standpoint, this is a
tremendous deal; the City is due to make somewhat close to
$200,000 at no risk to the assets of the City; if Council
successfully facilitates bond underwriting, this could be a means
of developing a revenue source other than taxing the citizens and
residents of the City of Alameda.
Councilmember Thomas stated the issue is not what KQED broadcasts,
but how KQED came to be in this particular forum; and that is
because Councilmember Camicia is an employee of KQED and suggested
his employers come to this City, discussed the issue with
Councilmembers including herself, and she believes that makes the
contract with KQED void; her concern is that the City is not
making enough money off the contract to defend the City; the
contract in her opinion, is void; she does not believe it [the
bond issue] is worth the risk.
President Corica stated he also has some concerns, similar to
Councilmember Thomas's with regard to Councilmember Camicia because
[Camicia] contacted him [Corica] too; he also has a problem that
the City must wait for the $190,000 and believes that money should
be given the City now instead of waiting many years while it
accumulates.
Mr. Zastrow stated the KQED finance person is present and
requested a moment for consultation.
Councilman Arnerich stated Council hired a Bond Counsel firm which
assured the Council that the bonds do not create any financial
liability to the City of Alameda; he agrees with the Mayor if
there is some way to get the monies [$190,900] up front, that would
be fine; this matter has gone on for a year; there have been
allegations made of Mr. Camicia discussing matter with individual
Councilmembers; the matter was sent to the District Attorney's
office and the facts indicated nothing illegal transpired.
Mr. Zastrow stated KQED will agree to pay the stipulated fee upon
issuance of the bonds.
In response to Councilmember Thomas, Bill Madison, of Jones, Hall,
Hill and White, stated the bonds are secured by a letter of credit,
May 1, 1990
145
and the letter of credit bank is unconditionally obligated to pay
off the bonds regardless of validity; they [bank] are taking all
the risks; that if the City should proceed, it is not a guarantee
that a lawsuit could not be filed, however a lawsuit would, in
counsel's opinion, be completely without merit because all of
the documents are very clear in laying out that the City is not
liable.
In response to Councilman Arnerich, Mr. Madison replied
professional financial analysts are people who would not look to
the financing and have it affect the City's credit rating, and
would disregard any default on a conduit issue such as this, which
is secured by letter of credit.
Councilmember Thomas stated if KQED has misrepresented anything to
any regulatory agency [FCC], she believes Council is on notice that
perhaps the matter should be given further scrutiny and she would
like a report as to why they were sanctioned and what the status of
that is.
The City Manager stated staff has called the FCC which has not been
responsive to providing the information.
Councilmember Withrow commended the Mayor for his negotiation; and
reiterated his motion to adopt the resolution as recommended by the
Finance Director.
Councilman Arnerich asked whether the motion included the
stipulation that the $190,900 be paid up front.
Councilmember Withrow stated that is part of the motion.
Councilmember Thomas inquired if KQED is willing to indemnify the
City for all financial losses it could suffer, for all attorneys'
fees, for all provable special damages it could incur because of
this [bond issue].
Regina Brown, Brown & Wood, responded, it is already in the
documents in Section 7.04 of the loan agreement where it says that
KQED will in fact do that; the City will be held harmless in any
action brought in trying to get the payments under these documents
or if there is a default, the City will be paid.
Councilmember Thomas inquired what would happen if the contract is
declared void.
Ms. Brown replied if it were deemed to be void, the letter of
credit would pay off the bonds, and KQED under its agreement with
the bank, would have to pay the bank; so even if the bonds were
declared to be invalid, the City would in no way be at risk.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Withrow and President Corica - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None. Abstentions:
Councilmember Camicia - 1.
May 1, 1990
146
90 -321 Resolution No. "Supporting United States Senate Bill
2212 concerning the Base Conversion, Community Development and
Worker Opportunity Act of 1990." Tabled.
At the request of President Corica, Councilmember Camicia agreed to
table the resolution for consideration at a later time, and moved
accordingly. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -322 Resolution No. 11959 "Reaffirming the City Council's
support for Measure A." (Article XXVI, City Charter) Adopted.
Bonny Moore, 627 Lincoln Avenue, #22, expressed her concern
regarding the settlement agreement for the recent lawsuit [Guyton
v. City of Alamedaj.
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated the lawsuit has been
settled and should now be made public; discussed the number of
units settled on; and stated so much money was spent on the case,
it could have been taken to court.
Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, stated that saying the Charter can
only be changed by vote of the people is over- simplification, a
court can rule a charter provision invalid; there are differences
of opinion on how to protect Measure A; discussed alternate
approaches to the issue.
Madelyn Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, stated she has problems with the
fifth "Whereas" in the resolution; instead of saying there was a
reaffirmation of Measure A, she would like to have it say that the
exception to Measure A was rejected by the vote of the people; she
and many others voted against the Red Brick Building, not because
of Measure A, but because she thought the building was hideous.
Diane Coler -Dark, 2857 Jackson Street, commented the General Plan
states that residents have made Measure A a part of the City
Charter, and if at any time they want to modify or change this
provision, it may only be done by the vote of the electorate;
questioned the reaffirming of Measure A by Council; expressed
concern about future lawsuits that might result from the recent
lawsuit settlement.
Darlene Banda, 919 Delmar, stated she is concerned about the recent
lawsuit settlement, and questions its validity in view of the terms
of Measure A.
President Corica stated if the [Guyton] lawsuit had been lost, they
would have appealed up to the Supreme Court; believes there should
be a vote of the people [regarding protection of Measure A]; and
believes the voters of Alameda will tell Council what they want.
Councilmember Camicia stated some persons in authority in
Sacramento, in the courts, etc., believe it is a racist Measure;
it has nothing to do with racism but only with density; and they
are persons who are going to determine the future of Measure A;
May 1, 1990
147
and the resolution is a step to let them know that Measure A is
important.
President Corica stated some other cities are now trying to do the
same thing Alameda has done; and it is only that some persons in
Sacramento are sharpshooting at Alameda.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution and
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion.
Councilmember Thomas stated Alameda is really a town, she believes
Measure A is valid until a judge or the people tell her otherwise.
Councilmember Camicia called for the question.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilman Arnerich moved continuance of the meeting past 11:00
p.m. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -323 Resolution No. 11960 "Designating a Redevelopment Survey
Area." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
90 -324 Resolution No. "Supporting SB2100 and AB3499, Bay
Bridge Toll Surcharge." Tabled.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, opposed SB2100.
Councilmember Camicia moved to table the matter until the Bills
comes out of Committee. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion
which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -325 Resolution No. 11961 "Authorizing filing of a claim with
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and Alameda County Board
of Supervisors for allocation of Transportation Development Act and
Alameda County Measure B Funds for Fiscal Year 1990 -91."
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
90 -326 Ordinance No. ` N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Section 17 -432 of Title XVIII thereof to provide
for the installation of a four -way stop at the intersection of
Buena Vista Avenue and Versailles Avenue." Tabled.
Councilmember Withrow moved introduction.
May 1, 1990
X4
Councilmember Thomas stated she requested this ordinance but she
would like to have some input from Edison School since it does not
meet standards.
Councilmember Thomas moved to table the matter, have the Public
Works Director call the school principal and get confirmation that
they support the matter. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
90 -327 President Corica reported to Council on natters regarding
the base closure issue, including a recent trip to Washington, D.C.
where he attended a meeting at the Offices of the Secretary of
Defense in the Pentagon; and a Navy Hearing earlier in the
evening.
BILLS
90 -328 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct
were ratified in the sum of $1,450,606.61.
Councilmember Camicia moved ratification of the bills. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow, and
President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
90 -329 Bonny Moore, 627 Lincoln Avenue, #22, discussed the
possibility of getting funding relative to base closures, to
recruit businesses that might benefit the Webster Street area.
ADJOURNMENT
90 -330 President Corica adjourned the meeting to Closed Session at
11:23 p.m. to discuss 1) Real Estate negotiations concerning four
parcels of vacant land located on Buena Vista Avenue, pursuant to
Section 54956.8 of the Brown Act, and 2) Employee performance
evaluation pursuant to Section 54957 of the Brown Act.
Respectfully submitted,
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in
accordance with the Brown Act.
May 1, 1990