Loading...
1990-07-17 Regular CC Minutes227 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA JULY 17, 1990 The meeting convened at 7:41 p.m. (at the conclusion of the Community Improvement Commission) with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Arnerich. Reverend Mary Rowe gave the invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas, Withrow and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. ANNOUNCEMENT BY MAYOR OF CLOSED SESSION ACTION(S), if any. Mayor Corica announced that, prior to the regular meeting, Council adjourned to Closed Session and took the following action: 90 -488 Workers' Compensation Claim, pursuant to Subsection (a) of Section 54956.9 of the Brown Act: authorized a settlement. 90 -489 Labor Relations pursuant to Subsection (a) of the Government Code, Section 54957.6 of the Brown Act: continued to immediately following the open session. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 90 -490 Presentation by Mayor of Employee Excellence Award to Linda Foye. Mayor Corica reviewed the background of the award and presented the award to Linda Foye, Permit Examiner, Public Works Department. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thomas requested (90 -517) resolution amending Alameda City Employees Association Salary Resolution be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda; and stated she will abstain on ( *90 -502) Bills. Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *90 -491 From Public Works Director recommending authorization of execution of First Supplemental Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland for the Ferry Service. Accepted. *90 -492 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending award of contract to Valley Crest Landscape, Inc. for construction of July 17, 1990 228 Tillman Park. Accepted. *90 -493 From Finance Director submitting Investment Report for period ending June 30, 1990. Accepted. *90 -494 From Public Works Director recommending authorization of Access Agreement with Erma DeLucchi for rights to install and maintain parking equipment and egress rights for cardholders over the driveway between Lot "A" and Central Avenue. Accepted. RESOLUTIONS *90 -495 Resolution No. 11989 "Authorizing the Public Works Director to sign Right -of -Way Certifications in connection with State and Federally funded road projects." Adopted. *90 -496 Resolution No. 11990 "Authorizing Cooperative Agreement between the City of Alameda and the State of California for Doolittle Drive Widening Project." Adopted. *90 -497 Resolution No. 11991 "Establishing guidelines for reimbursement of per diem travel and related expenses in connection with the conduct of City business." Adopted. *90 -498 Resolution No. 11992 "Authorizing bank signatories." Adopted. FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES *90 -499 Ordinance No. 2492e N.S. "Establishing a traffic signal at the intersection of Bridgeway Road and Packet Landing Road." Adopted. *90 -500 Ordinance No. 2493 N.S. "Establishing a stop sign for St. Margaret Court at Broadway." Adopted. *90 -501 Ordinance No. 2494 N.S. "Establishing a yield sign for eastbound right turn vehicles from Encinal Avenue onto Fernside Boulevard." Adopted. BILLS *90 -502 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct, was ratified in the sum of $1,060,397.91. [One Abstention: Councilmember Thomas.) FILING *90 -503 Affidavit of City Manager and Chief of Police pursuant to Section 17 -11 of the Charter of the City of Alameda. Approved for filing. MINUTES Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the Minutes of the Regular July 17, 1990 229 Council Meeting of July 3, 1990. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. * * * * * * ** Councilmember Camicia moved the resolution appointing Civil Service Board member be taken out of order. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -504 Resolution No. 11993 "Appointing Pamela G. DeSimone as a member of the Civil Service Board." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The oath was administered to the appointee by the City Clerk. * * * * * * ** At the request of President Corica, Councilmember Camicia moved the ordinance relating to alarm systems be taken out of order. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 90 -505 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Section 12 -1023 and 1031.1 to Chapter 10, Title XII thereof relating to Alarm Systems." Introduced. Ernest Chase, 833 Portola Avenue, stated he was addressing only commercially maintained closed circuit triple A alarm systems, and protested false alarm charges to individual merchants who have no control once the alarm has been set for the night, and the all -clear signal received. Councilmember Withrow stated he is uncomfortable with the false alarm fee proposal; he is a proponent of alarms for businesses and homes, and believes the false alarm fee does not make sense; Alameda is concerned about the safety of its citizens; the more alarm systems the City has, the more security there will be; in the proposal, forceable entry must be proven; it is not necessary with perimeter alarms to have forceable entry in order to set off the system; inquired if there are logs to back up the false alarm calls, how many homes were involved, if the fees were in effect last year, how many residents would have been charged $100 or $250, and how many charges would have been for small business. The Chief of Police stated there are about 2500 false alarm responses each year; he did not have breakdowns handy; and noted some persons are more responsible in handling alarms than others. Councilmember Withrow inquired how persons could improve management of alarm systems, and the Police Chief responded improvement may be made in how the alarm is armed, how many persons have access when July 17, 1990 230 it is armed, alarm system vendors should be controlled, electronic problems should be fixed; and noted the alarm response proposal was recommended in the Police audit; responding to 2500 false alarms a year is unnecessary expenditure of police resources; if response is made to the same alarm repeatedly, when a real problem does occur, there is false security and that becomes an officer safety issue. Councilmember Withrow commented the visibility of an officer's presence helps keep the crime rate down. The Police Chief agreed and added, from a management standpoint, it appears best to direct the efforts of the police officers in those areas of town where problems are experienced. Councilmember Withrow expressed a concern that people might shut off their alarms. The Police Chief stated he is a proponent of alarm systems, but believes it is worthwhile to manage this area of police response, if false alarms can be reduced by fifty percent, that would be significant. Councilmember Camicia suggested perhaps the first five false alarms could be free of charges, then a charge could start at the sixth false alarm with the $50 rate. Councilmember Withrow moved to approve the alarm permit [proposal] and not approve punitive fining system proposed fees. President Corica stated he does not believe persons would turn off their alarm systems; if they get penalized, they would learn how the alarm works. The Chief of Police noted there are some establishments in town for whom there are two and three false alarm calls per week, consistently throughout the year. President Corica stated a compromise would be to consider Councilmember Camicia's suggestion of allowing five and perhaps six false alarms before charging; and then require a heavy fee. Councilman Arnerich stated he believes the fees are exorbitant, but he does believe there should be a fee; he noted the Lincoln School fire alarm has been sounding repeatedly, and the cost of police or fire response may take valuable manhours away from other areas where they are needed. The Police Chief stated his goal is to control police resources and control false alarms in the City, and try to recover some of the cost of one or two officers responding to calls; some cities have a no- response policy but the Alameda Police Department believes that would be at cross - purposes with what the Department is all about. Councilman Arnerich stated he agreed with Councilmember Withrow July 17, 1990 231 that Council may be circumventing what is desired for the public, which is to have an alarm system that works; and suggested a reduction in the charges the first year to $50 [3 or 4 false alarm responses], $75 [5 or 6 false alarms] and $100 [7 or more false alarms], instead of $50, $100, and $250 respectively. Councilmember Camicia agreed the fees could be charged for a year, then reviewed, using the charges Councilman Arnerich suggested. Councilman Arnerich stated the false alarms are taking away the personnel needed out in the streets at a critical time, in the evenings. Councilmember Withrow reiterated his motion to approve the [alarm] permit, and not include punitive penalties for false alarms. " Councilmember Withrow requested from the City Manager: a breakdown of the 2500 false alarms per year, a breakdown of responses between business and residential, the number of repeating offenders, how many fall into the categories of 3 -4 [false alarms], 5 -6, 7 or more per year, and less than three; and he would like to defer action on this matter until Council has the information. Councilmember Withrow's motion failed due to lack of a second. Councilmember Camicia stated he would make the same motion [approve alarm permit], include Councilman Arnerich's suggestion on fees [for false alarm responses], and include that matter be reviewed in a year under Reports and Recommendations. Councilmember Camicia stated that under the motion, he requests that in the report at the end of a year, the information Councilmember Withrow requested be included. Councilmember Thomas inquired why the alarm permit does not apply to fire alarms. Assistant Fire Chief Cowell commented the Fire Department does not currently have a system for retrieving money for false alarms; noted the number of persons and equipment involved in alarm responses and stated he did not have cost related figures. Councilmembers Thomas and Arnerich requested the Fire Department to report back on false alarm responses and associated costs. Councilmember Withrow suggested that the Lincoln School situation be addressed at the next monthly meeting of the Mayor and the School District to achieve better response coordination. Councilman Arnerich seconded Councilmember Camicia's motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, and President Corica - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Withrow and Thomas - 2. Absent: None. Councilmember Withrow stated he would like the requested from staff by the next Council meeting if information he possible. July 17, 1990 232 WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 90 -506 From John Barni, Jr., Shaw & Lunt Realtors, Alameda, regarding business license tax charged commercial investors. John Barni, Sr., 1380 East Shore Drive, stated, regarding business licenses, business investors are paying $5.00 per 1000 square feet; e.g. he has 9000 square feet which, at a commercial investor's rate would be $45 per year, but his tax was $260, and he believes the business investors' tax should be raised to the same rate. John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, expressed his concerns regarding property taxation and requested persons be treated equally. The City Manager stated the Finance Director has reported there may be a limitation to the City's adjustment of a business license tax under Proposition 62, but some cities have found that charter cities can raise business license tax and can do what Mr. Barni is indicating; and staff can report back on what success other cities have had. President Corica noted an upward adjustment as been suggested, but perhaps there could be consideration of a decrease for the small businessman. Councilmember Thomas stated she somewhat disagrees with lowering the rates at this time; the more important focus is to cure the "give - away" to large commercial developers who have thousands of square feet: there could be an exemption for small businesses; and "small business" should be defined. Councilman Arnerich stated Mr. Barni has brought up very good points and he would like to send the matter back for further study to explore the suggestion in Mr. Barni's letter. Councilman Arnerich moved to accept the written communication. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Withrow requested a layman's explanation of Proposition 62, to which the City Manager responded that will be included in the report. HEARINGS 90 -507 Consideration of a Master Fee Resolution. (Continued from June 19, 1990, Council Meeting) President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing. The Finance Director reviewed the background of the matter. President Corica opened the public portion of the hearing. July 17, 1990 233 On the call for proponents, there were none. On the call for opponoents, the following person spoke. John Barni, Jr. 875 Island Drive, stated Fire Department inspection fee costs the same for his small amount of square footage as square footage in large companies, e.g., Safeway; same preliminary plan fee would apply to a lot -split adjustment or large tract; Council should look at assets in City and returns generated; and believes the Bureau of Electricity should be sold. President Corica closed the public portion of the hearing. President Corica stated he has a problem with the proposed increase in fees: under Planning Department, he would like to see the Use Permit proposed increase reduced from $700 to $400, the Preliminary Plan fee from $950 to $650, the design review from $200 to $50, major design review from $800 to $300; and the Historical Advisory Board proposed Demolition Certificate of Appropriateness reduced from $300 to $100. Councilmember Withrow stated the issue is to what degree the City should be subsidizing services; and he would like to know who selected the cities for comparison, why they were selected, and if Alameda would want to develop its image after those cities. The City Manager responded the concern was how Alameda compares with nearby East Bay Cities which might affect whether persons would do business in Alameda or those cities; and noted some cities could not provide information. The City Manager stated, concerning large and small businesses being charged the same fee, that fees are required by the State to be based upon the City's cost, which needs to be demonstrated; however, Council can subsidize a particular fee to encourage people. President Corica stated he has somewhat the same concern; how can the large increases be justified; he is concerned with individuals who want to make a house addition or start a small business; the fees may slow down or discourage some citizens entirely; and he believes the increases are too great. The City Manager responded the figures given to Council reflect the old fees and the costs of service so that Council can decide on what the subsidies should be. Councilmember Thomas commented on the cost of sending fire engines to respond to fire alarms; and discussed the cost of service permits in the Fire Department e.g., hazardous waste materials. Councilman Arnerich commented some fees are too high; perhaps there should be an across -the -board ten percent raise; and he is not comfortable with the proposal, as there are too many ambiguities. July 17, 1990 234 Councilmember Camicia stated staff has provided Council with the cost of providing services; Council appears to have determined that those who can afford to, should pay, and those who cannot, should get a break; perhaps Council should direct staff to consider Council's concern for the "little guy" and report back with suggestions for Council's consideration. Councilmember Thomas inquired, regarding the fee for hazardous chemicals, storage handling, transportation manufacturing use, if the fee will apply to commercial or industrial. The City Manager stated the Master Fee resolution sets the fees; the ordinance that will come before Council will establish what the fees pertain to. Councilmember Withrow stated he would like to support Councilmember Camicia's suggestion but would like to have the staff modify by starting off with old costs, and then a suggested subsidy for each of the areas of support with an analysis on the justification. The City Manager clarified Councilmember Withrow's request was to provide full costs on each of fees, show recommended subsidy, show the new fee, and take into account comments made by Council to further reduce below the 60% level. Councilmember Withrow agreed and added the report should include the rationale on why staff would be proposing the subsidy. President Corica stated Council should make the process simple and just direct staff to lower the fees. Councilman Arnerich agreed with the Mayor, stating Council now knows what the cost of each service would be; but the increases are unacceptable; homeowners will be bootlegging and Council must be realistic in the costs. Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to see the ordinance before the resolution; there are some services the City is expected to provide and for which it cannot charge; a good study has been provided, the matter has come before Council three times, and she cannot see a further study. Councilmember Camicia stated perhaps the staff should be directed to address Council's various concerns and come back with a report which will reflect a shift of fees that will help those who are least able to afford to pay [fees]. Councilman Arnerich suggested an addendum to that suggestion, to permit a discount for senior citizens. Councilmember Thomas stated there are certain things to be encouraged, e.g., remodeling or upgrading of homes which are a benefit to the surrounding community, and she does not believe fees for such maintenance and improvements should be raised; there are also things to be discouraged e.g., a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and such fees should be increased. July 17, 1990 235 President Corica stated he would like staff to review the matter and report back to Council. Councilmember Withrow stated if Councilmember Camicia will convert his suggestion into a motion, he will second. [Councilmember Camicia voiced no objection.] Councilmember Withrow stated the City might want to mortgage the Bureau of Electricity and use it as an asset to increase leverage. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. APPEALS 90 -508 Rehearing of Appeal of Planning Board decision to approve Negative Declaration (IS- 90 -2); Use Permit, UP -90 -8, to permit the construction of commercial ferry terminal dock facilities in the Open Space; Use Permit, UP -90 -7, to permit the construction of a parking lot associated with the proposed ferry terminal in a R -1 Single- Family Residence District; and Final Development Plan, FDP -90 -1, to permit the development of a ferry terminal facility within the Harbor Bay Isle Development. The site is located at the west end of Mecartney Road on the western shoreline of the Bay Farm Island peninsula. Applicant: Doric Development, Inc. Appellant: Golden Gate Audubon Society. (Continued from July 3, 1990, Council Meeting) At President Corica's request, the City Attorney announced that minutes before the meeting, the lawsuit of Golden Gate Audubon vs . the City was settled, and she would would like to recommend that the Council open the hearing to take testimony from the public other than the parties, the City Council then move to deny the Appeal and adopt the recommendations by Planning, plus Condition No. 22 modifications; one of the terms of the settlement was that the City Council would make those modifications part of the record that were recommended by the Planning Department and a Settlement Agreement will be brought back to the City Council for review and authorization for execution in the future, possibly on Monday at the Closed Session Meeting on July 23rd. President Corica explained the procedure of the Appeal. President Corica opened the public portion of the hearing. President Corica noted he had speaker slips from Stephen Brimhall, Doric Development, Inc. [Applicant] and Leora Feeney representing Golden Gate Audubon Society [Appellant]. and inquired if they were satisfied with the City Attorney's comments. Stephen Brimhall and Leora Feeney answered President Corica in the affirmative. On the call for proponents, the following person spoke. July 17, 1990 236 John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, commented about the lack of nesting of birds on Bay Farm Island many years ago. On the call for opponents, there were none. President Corica closed the public portion of the hearing. At Councilmember Camicia's request, the City Attorney reiterated that the suggestion was that the Acting Planning Director's recommendation on page two [July 10, 1990, Report] should be adopted with the addition of Condition No. 22; and read the modifications in Condition No. 22, which was the result of a meeting with all the parties and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. "The following additional monitoring effort is recommended to be added to Condition No. 22, and this is Condition No. 22 as modified: "As part of the biological monitoring program, the applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist to obtain samples by appropriate netting procedures in the area of the eelgrass beds of fish species known to be important to the California Least Tern, twice annually, one of which shall be during the foraging season of the California Least Tern, with annual reports to the City. The details of the sampling procedures and the analysis for the annual reports shall be finalized by the City's Planning Director through consultation with qualified biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior and the State of California Department of Fish and Game." Councilmember Camicia stated he would move the previously mentioned recommendation [to deny the Appeal, adopt the recommendations of Staff [Items 1.B., 3.B., 4.B. and 5.B. of Exhibit "A" of the June 13, 1990 Council report] with revised condition No. 36 [provided in the July 3, 1990 memo to the Council from the Acting Planning Director), and approve Negative Declaration, IS -90 -2, Use Permit, UP -90 -7, Use Permit, UP -90 -8, and Final Development Plan, FDP -90 -1, as stated in Planning Board Resolution Nos. 2064, 2065, 2066 and 2067.], and add that language read into the record by the City Attorney. [See the two preceding paragraphs.] Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -509 Appeal of Planning Board UP -90 -6, requiring replacement ornamental iron bar fence at the City of Alameda. Appellant: Condition of Use Permit Approval, of chain link fence with an patio in Lincoln Park. Applicant: City of Alameda. President Corica explained the procedure of the Appeal. The Recreation and Parks Director reviewed the background of the matter. July 17, 1990 237 The public portion of the hearing was opened. On the call for proponents, the following spoke. David Plummer, 1401 High Street, stated if the shrubs would be taken down, then he would hope the wrought iron fence would be put up, however, if the hedge is going to be left in place, there is no need to disturb the present fencing. On the call for opponents, there were none. President Corica closed the public portion of the hearing. Councilman Arnerich discussed the height of the cyclone fencing and noted that the fencing cannot be seen with the exception of the * corner post as it is covered with the shrubs, and to replace it with ornamental fencing is unnecessary. In response to Councilmember Thomas's inquiry regarding painting of the exposed poles, the Recreation and Parks Director commented when the project is completed, if there are any exposed poles, they could be painted black; and added, if there is money left in the contingency fund, there could be consideration of putting in wrought iron gates. Councilman Arnerich stated wrought iron gates would complement the shrubbery, noting there are two chain link gates. Councilmember Camicia moved to uphold the Appeal, and impose the condition that wrought iron gates replace two existing chain link gates [with contingency funds]. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Camicia moved to take the related report and recommendation out of order. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -510 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending award of contract to Buestad Construction, Inc. for renovation of the Lincoln Park Recreation Center Patio Area. Accepted. Councilmember Withrow moved acceptance of the report and recommendaton. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90 -511 From City Attorney regarding Appeals of Planning Board decisions to the City Council. Councilmember Withrow commented in favor of Option No. 1 [Limit the Appeals to the City Council to the Planning Board record only. No live public testimony or additional written communication July 17, 1990 23E allowed], as a reasonable approach. President Corica commented Council could not have resolved the Audubon Appeal satisfactorily without hearing speakers. The City Attorney commented Option No. 1 is the easiest and best way to handle the matter, however, all options are legally and technically possible. Councilmember Thomas inquired if, under the Brown Act, it is possible to disallow speakers. The City Attorney replied there is the ability of the public to observe but the matter can be limited to the record on appeal and the Brown Act has no bearing; the only time it is required is when it is a public hearing. Councilmember Thomas stated the whole [Appeal] process is to obtain a review; Council can allow speakers and limit them to the Appeal; however the record does not reflect the feeling of, and importance to, the public. Councilmember Camicia stated Option No. 1 is the cleanest option; the Alameda Municipal Code reflects that Appeals are to be heard only on the record and if the [Planning Board] action was improper, the matter is to be returned to the Planning Board for rehearing. Councilmember Thomas commented she agrees Council needs to support appointed officials [Board and Commission Members]; but at times people need access to their elected officials. President Corica commented he believes Option No. 1 may be cutting [the Appeal procedure] down too much. Councilman Arnerich addressed the possibility of accepting Option No. 3 with testimony limited to what was before the Planning Board. Councilmember Camicia commented problems arise because people do not limit themselves to the issue. Councilmember Camicia moved Option No. 1 [Limit the Appeals to the City Council to the Planning Board record only. No live public testimony or additional written communication allowed]. Councilmember Thomas questioned how Council could get into trouble listening to the public. Councilmember Camicia stated there are people who do not follow the Alameda Municipal Code, they talk about things that are not part of the Planning record, and he wants to follow the Code. President Corica stated on the one hand, he is trying to accelerate the process; however Council is the final opportunity for appeal; and Council must respond; if, for example, the Council believes there should be a policy and the Planning Board disagrees, there July 17, 1990 239 should be some way to turn the matter around. Councilmember Withrow questioned the City Attorney if it would be possible for Option No. 1 to be the standard, but in addition, could Council, after reviewing the record, have the option to hear testimony. The City Attorney responded that would be difficult to do because there would be an intangible criteria; there should be a standard uniformly applied to everyone. Councilmember Camicia suggested looking at Option No. 2 as a compromise, Written Communications that are limited to a specified time. Councilmember Thomas stated the Adult Literacy Program suggests some adults would have difficulty placing things in writing; she would go with Option No. 3; noted the possibility of a procedure similar to the filing of an Extraordinary Writ (which is an alternative to an Appeal) with the Court when someone differs with a judge. Councilman Arnerich questioned if it would be possible to limit the testimony to those who spoke before the Planning Board and are on record. Councilmember Camicia stated if one person is allowed to speak, all must be allowed to speak, Option No. 2 allows written communications within a specified time, giving everyone access to the process. Councilman Arnerich stated he is more amenable to Option No. 3 because he prefers live public testimony to written. Councilmember Camicia raised the question of how to monitor speakers when limited to the record. Councilmember Camicia moved recommendation No. 2, because it gives people access to the process, ensures there will be no problems at the podium, and is kept within a manageable time frame. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion; and stated it would allow input to the Council, and addresses concerns about having a way for citizens to express themselves. President Corica stated written communications allow attorneys to write [the Council]; some individuals might not have the same skill. Councilmember Camicia stated if Council will be swayed by anything other than the Planning Board [record], then the Alameda Municipal Code needs to be changed and Council can hear the entire matter and decide on the merits or what happens at the hearing; either people must be limited at the podium [to the record], or the entire matter must be opened up. July 17, 1990 240 Following further discussion on procedure regarding hearing Appeals on the record, the [ Councilmember Camicia's] motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow - 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas and President Corica - 2. Absent: None. 90 -512 From Assistant City Manager regarding Board /Commission applicants providing qualifications at Council Meeting prior to their nominations. President Corica stated some Councilmembers would like applicants to speak to Council; and his suggestion is that a notation on the Board /Commission applications be added stating applicants may come to the Council Meeting and speak if they wish to; to set a specific time to come is wrong; Councilmembers can call applicants individually, and speak to them; and he believes there are many applicants that will not want to address Council. Councilmember Thomas agreed, it is the Mayor's right under the Charter to nominate; and he should be unfettered; and applicants should not be put through public display, and if they are, there needs to be discussion on whether or not that should be done in Closed Session. Councilmember Camicia stated all he is speaking about is sending applicants a letter to let them know they are entitled to speak at the podium if they choose to, and if they do not choose to, they do not need to; some people do not want to speak publicly, but others want to know there is an open, public process. Councilman Arnerich stated there is no intent to take away from the Mayor now or in the future, the right to nominate; he noted there will be about fifteen applicants for the Economic Development Commission, and there are many people he will not know, and if they speak, it will enable Councilmembers to feel more comfortable voting for the persons. President Corica stated he has no problem with placing a notation on the application that they may voluntarily come before the Council, but does not believe a date should be set; they can come under Oral Communications or can write a letter stating they wish to speak. Councilmember Camicia stated speaking [before Council] would be strictly voluntary, and moved the recommendation [to amend the present procedure to allow candidates the opportunity to state their qualifications publicly prior to the actual nomination]. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow - 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas and President Corica - 2. Absent: None. 90 -513 From Public Works Director regarding the proposed abandonment of Alameda Avenue, west of Oak Street. President Corica commented that Council should not do anything with July 17, 1990 241 the abandonment of Alameda Avenue unless it is considered in conjunction with Mastick Senior Center negotiations; noted that the City is negotiating with the School District, that the City's expenditures for the Center make it a first class facility; and he does not want to abandon the street until there a decision is reached with the School District. Councilman Arnerich agreed that Mastick Senior Center is top priority and before giving up anything, Council must be sure that for the 0.33 acre, there will be something in return for the City. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Corica verified for the record that he made the motion [that abandonment of Alameda Avenue should be considered in conjunction with the Mastick Senior Center negotiations]. 90 -514 From Acting Planning Director regarding Market and Fiscal Impact Analysis for estuary development. Councilman Arnerich commented perhaps the persons involved in the proposed development area could provide the $35,000 to $50,000, or share half of the cost with the City, for the study. Councilmember Camicia stated the matter could be tabled until funding can be identified. President Corica suggested accepting the report and directing the City Manager to report back on funding alternatives for Fiscal Impact Analysis. Councilman Arnerich so moved. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -515 From Finance Director recommending implementation of the Full Cost Allocation Plan. Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation. Councilman . Arnerich commented the recommendation is for the Golf Enterprise Fund to be reduced to 75% for the first year, the Golf Commission and the Finance Committee have recommended a cap of $75,000 and the 75% is only a small amount over the cap and he finds that acceptable; and recommended instead of $109,639 for the succeeding two years, he would like to reduce the amount by $5000 to $104,639, as he believes it is more appropriate funding. Councilmember Withrow clarified the Golf Course operation would be subsidized in the amount of approximately $27,000. President Corica noted the City Attorney's cost allocation was approximately $41,000 and inquired what the services were; to which the City Attorney responded a detailed analysis had been prepared, including e.g., litigation, leases, negotiations, risk management. July 17, 1990 242 Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the recommendation, and reduced adjusted cost allocation for the Golf Enterprise Fund to $104,600 for Fiscal Years 1990 -91, 1991 -92. At Councilmember Thomas's request, the City Manager commented on the Enterprise Fund, noting that the City is allowed to continue to maintain the Enterprise Fund as long as the funds are not diverted to other City projects unless it can be shown, as in the Cost Allocation Plan, that there is an expense generated from that activity to be reimbursed; there has been concern regarding how long balances can be built up and still maintain the integrity of the Fund, but there are, and will be, projects in the future, which will bring the balance down. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. RESOLUTIONS 90 -516 Resolution No. " Establishing fees for various City services and permits." No action. (See 90 -507) 90 -517 Resolution No. . "Amending the Alameda City Employees Association (A.C.E.A.) Salary Resolution by establishing the salaries for new additional positions in the Community Development Department to reflect staff reorganization." Councilmember Thomas stated she pulled the item from the Consent Calendar because she would like to know if new pay rates are being set. The City Manager replied this resolution is to establish both the positions and the salaries for the new positions in the Community Development Department; this is not a pay increase, but is a part of the reorganization. The Community Development Director stated the positions are primarily retities of existing positions; where there are existing classifications, the pay is exactly the same; and there is one -half of a new position. Councilmember Withrow moved adoption of the resolution. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. NEW BUSINESS 90 -518 Mayor Corica invited Mr. Losse, author of a letter to the Editor of the Alameda Journal regarding composition of Fourth of July Parades, to become a member of the Parade Committee next year. 90 -519 Councilmember Camicia requested that Board and Commission Members receive Certificates of Service from the City Council at Regular Council Meetings. July 17, 1990 243 90 -520 Councilmember Camicia requested a report on the Historical Advisory Board's recommendation regarding proposed street name change for Main Street [to Mulvaney]. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA ITEMS 90 -521 Don Roberts requested Council to direct the City Attorney to provide a legal opinion on whether the Brown Act was violated on June 27th at United Cable Studios when the Chairman and two other members of the Cable Television Oversight Committee met with Tom Tuttle. Mayor Corica stated he would like to know that [if there was a violation]. The City Attorney responded she is in the process of preparing a memorandum to each advisory committee identifying specific requirements under the Brown Act, and will hopefully bring a report to Council at the second meeting in August. Councilmember Thomas stated Mr. Roberts makes a good point; certain minimum requirements must be met; and opinions can always be obtained from other counsel. The City Attorney also noted the Brown Act has a provision to cure any defect and the Cable Oversight Committee will be meeting on Thursday, July 19, as a prudent course of action, to prevent any claim of violation [Brown Act]. ADJOURNMENT 90 -522 President Corica adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. to a Closed Session to meet with the City's designated representative regarding Labor Relations pursuant to Subsection (a) of the Government Code, Section 54957.6 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. July 17, 1990