1990-09-04 Regular CC Minutes292
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
SEPTEMBER 4, 1990
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. with President Corica presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Camicia.
Reverend Doug Henderson 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.
President Corica announced that Council did not go into Closed
Session and therefore, no action was taken.
CONSENT CALENDAR
At the request of John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, (90-643)
report on repair and resurfacing certain streets, (90-644) report
on accepting improvement for Tract 5716, and (90-645) report
regarding permit for maintenance dredging; and at the request of
Councilmember Thomas, items (90-646) report regarding grant funds
for child care services, (90-647) report to set hearing on Appeal
concerning variance for chain link fence, (90-649) resolution
regarding committee for Business and Waterfront Improvement
Project, and (90-650) resolution denying Appeal regarding ferry
terminal, were removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the
regular agenda. Councilmember Thomas stated she would abstain on
(*90-629) ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1082 Pension Fund, and
vote no on (*90-630) Bills.
Councilman Arnerich moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [See (90-633) for comments
regarding (*90-629) ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1082, Pension
Fund.]
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*90-624 From Assistant City Manager recommending acceptance of work
by T.J. Lynch Construction, Inc., for the Golf Complex Restroom
Reconstruction Project. Accepted.
*90-625 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending adoption of
plans and specifications for construction of the "Doc" Harrington
Soccer Field. Accepted.
*90-626 From Finance Director recommending contract renewal for
Great Western Deferred Compensation Services and recommending
amendment of Trust Agreement with ICMA Retirement Corporation for
Deferred Compensation Services,
September 4, 1990
293
RESOLUTIONS
*90 -627 Resolution No. 12011. "Authorizing Fuel Efficient Traffic
Signal Management Program Grant Application and authorizing
execution upon approval by the State."
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE
*90 -628 Ordinance No. 2496, N.S. "Amending the Real Estate
Property Tax Ordinance." Adopted.
*90 -629 Ordinance No. t N.S. "Amending Ordinance No. 1082,
New Series, to retain existing Pension Fund and provide an option
for members of the Police and Fire Departments of the City of
Alameda to transfer to State of California Public Employees Pension
System (PERS). (Requires Five Affirmative Votes, pursuant to
Section 28 of Pension Ordinance.) Not adopted.
[Abstention: Councilmember Thomas - 1.] [Subsequently, a motion
for reconsideration was made and carried. See paragraph 90 -633.]
BILLS
90 -630 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct,
was ratified in the sum of $2,977,381.48. [Noes: Councilmember
Thomas - 1.]
MINUTES
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of the Minutes of the Regular
Council Meeting of August 21, 1990. Councilmember Camicia seconded
the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
90 -631 Proclamation declaring the month of September as Meals on
Wheels Month.
President Corica read the Proclamation regarding the Meals on
Wheels Program and presented the Proclamation to Rosemary Perata
and Charles Tillman.
90 -632 Posthumous Commendation of Nancymarie van Praag, former
Director of the Midway Center.
President Corica read the commendation and a letter of condolence,
and presented the framed documents to the eldest child of
Nancymarie van Praag, Maggie van Praag, who expressed her
appreciation.
90 -633 Councilmember Camicia inquired regarding the vote on the
ordinance under Final Passage of Ordinances on the Consent Calendar
concerning Ordinance 1082, *90 -629, what the impact would be on the
matter due to "no action" [as five votes were required for passage
but one abstention had been cast.]
September 4, 1990
The City Manager noted there were five ayes for the introduction of
the ordinance [at the August 21, 1990 Council Meeting].
President Corica inquired if the matter could be brought back to
Council, to which the City Attorney replied that could be done, but
if the abstention is due to a conflict of interest, the law
requires that conflict be stated.
Councilmember Thomas stated she filed a document with the City
Clerk [on August 2, 1990] which was subsequently seized by the
police following discussion with the City Attorney; she has filed
a claim for return of the document, and until it is returned, she
believes voting for or against the matter [ordinance], even though
she favors it, would be inappropriate.
In response to Councilmember Withrow's inquiry regarding passage of
the ordinance, the City Attorney stated the Pension Ordinance
requires five votes, but she would review the existing ordinance to
see whether or not the five affirmative votes on the introduction
of the ordinance will suffice and perhaps the best approach will be
to move to reconsider the matter and agendize the ordinance for the
next Council Meeting.
Councilmember Camicia moved to reconsider the matter, and inquired
if the conflict of interest question is resolved.
The City Attorney stated she does not believe Thomas's reason for
abstaining is a technical conflict of interest, but she will review
the entire matter and report back to Council.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia,
Withrow and President Corica - 4. Noes: None. Absent: None.
Abstentions: Councilmember Thomas - 1.
[Note: Subsequently, the ordinance was adopted at a Special
Council Meeting on September 7, 1990.]
HEARINGS
90 -634 Consideration of amendments to Utility Users Tax Ordinance.
President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing.
The Finance Director reviewed the background of the matter.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
On the call for proponents, there were none.
On the call for opponents, the following persons spoke:
Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated water is a basic need and
should not be taxed; regarding Cable television, there is
currently a five percent franchise fee, which in effect is paid by
September 4, 1990
295
consumers; if the proposed tax is to pay for the City Hall and
Carnegie Building projects, questioned if the proposed tax would be
discontinued when projects are completed.
Ronda Cohn, General Manger, United Cable Television, 339 Broadway,
stated Cable TV is a discretionary purchase not a utility;
customers already pay five percent to the City, an additional five
percent is unfair; when rates increase, less people take Cable and
the franchise fee will be reduced to the City, and that loss should
be considered.
Richard Roth, 1417 - 5th Street, stated proposed fees are
continually being considered, and urged Council to allow the
utility taxes to remain as they are at present.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan, stated his concern regarding tax
on water.
Stanford Shane, 470D Cola Ballena, stated it is time to use common
sense on proposing taxes, and on expenses, and he would like an
answer on why the Bureau of Electricity cannot be sold to P.G.& E.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Camicia stated staff keeps bringing proposals for fee
increases to Council which indicates there is a problem; there has
not been a report from the Finance Committee on what the problems
are, and he believes there should be an explanation to the citizens
on why fees are being raised.
The Finance Director responded fee increases are necessary because
of unfunded capital projects, and cost of such projects is
escalating.
The City Manager added that the State has passed legislation which
allows the County to pass on charges to the City not previously
required, also, certain tax revenue will not be passed on to the
City as in the past, the financial condition of the State and
County is worsening, therefore, the City must make decisions now to
protect its future.
Councilmember Camicia stated conditions are not going to get
better; the State will continue to pass responsibility to the
cities; and Council must decide to either pass more fees or begin
to pay attention to what services must be cut, whether recreation
or library services or other cuts.
President Corica stated Councilmember Camicia's points are well
taken; he would like to see the Finance Committee review the
matter and provide a recommendation.
Councilmember Withrow stated he cannot raise taxes just to gather
revenue, he would like a requirements-oriented document which
defines what is needed and identifies the alternate sources to
raising capital to meet those requirements; City Hall and the
Carnegie Building must be refurbished as the State has mandated
September 4, 1990
296
seismic upgrading; he would like a five-year revenue plan
projecting where revenues may come from, what costs and capital
requirements are going to be, so that Council can look at
alternatives and select what will be best for the City.
The City Manager stated studies would be good, however, there is
State legislation being formulated which will preclude cities, as
Proposition 13 did, from being able to make choices in revenue
sources, and using those to bail the City out of what it will be
facing in the future.
Councilmember Withrow proposed Council approve the fees requested
by staff with the contingency that staff report within ninety days
with the requirement defined, and if in fact this [utility tax] is
the best way to raise taxes to cover the requirements, otherwise
the tax will revert to the current standard.
President Corica stated the least amount should be taxed, there
should not be a tax on water, but if Council wishes to go ahead
with the contingency mentioned, a report can be brought back to
Council and possibly the tax rescinded.
Councilmember Thomas commented on hazardous waste, and other, rate
increases, believes it is a good idea to refer the matter back to
the Finance Committee; if the fee is enacted now, she does not
believe it will ever be reduced, believes the budgeted pay raise
was unfunded; until Council knows exactly what it wants, she does
not believe Council needs to accept the proposal.
Councilmember Withrow stated the intent is to preserve
options; agrees that most taxes imposed do not come off,
the approval of the utility users tax be contingent
subsequent approval by Council within a defined period of
would be reasonable to define the requirements; and
defined requirements] are not passed by Council, the
users] taxes will come off.
President Corica stated he would like to support the
however, he does not believe the five percent for water
included.
Council's
and moved
upon the
time that
if [the
[utility
proposal,
should be
Councilman Arnerich stated he is not for the increase, reviewed
amounts that would be raised by proposed taxes; commented on
continuous raising of taxes; and would like to know what the money
will fund.
President Corica stated perhaps the matter should simply be given
to the Finance Committee to review and report back.
Councilmember Withrow stated he agrees with sentiments stated,
however he understands the ability to cover options should be put
in motion immediately or the opportunity could be lost.
The City Mangaer
final passage of
there was no lead
September 4, 1990
noted the time constraints on introduction and
ordinances, plus thirty days to take effect;
time for cities because State action took place
297
in August, the City budget was balanced at that time, but now time
is of the essence.
Councilmember Camicia stated Council does not want to raise fees,
but if fees are not raised, the Council must cut City services; it
should be part of the motion that if for some reason Council cannot
keep the tax in place or make up revenues, prioritization of City
services should be included.
Councilmember Withrow amended his motion to include that
modification.
Councilmember Withrow reiterated his motion is to approve the
ordinance recommendation at the 5.5 percent rate; the approval is
contingent upon the staff and the Finance Committee returning with
documentation that would define the need for [increase in] revenue
and would define the best source of revenue to meet requirements,
otherwise the [utility users] taxes automatically are removed.
The City Attorney inquired if Council would be opposed to passing
the ordinances and having the matter agendized in ninety days for
review, at which time Council could take an action to either repeal
or affirm at that point; the affect would be the same [as the
motion] except that the contingency would be a review.
Councilmember Withrow amended his motion accordingly.
The motion [to introduce the following three ordinances] was
carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow and President Corica - 4. Noes:
Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
90-635 Ordinances No.
Code by adding Title III,
the application of the
Introduced. [See paragraph 90-634]
N.S. "Amending the
Chapter 12, Article 5,
existing Utility Users
90-636 Ordinances No.
Code by adding Title III,
the application of the
Television." Introduced.
Alameda Municipal
by providing for
Tax to water."
, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Chapter 12, Article 6, by providing for
existing Utility Users Tax to Cable
[See paragraph 90-634]
90-637 Ordinances No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by adding Title III, Chapter 12, Sections 3-1221, 3-1231,
3-1241, 3-1251, and 3-1261, by increasing the existing Utility
Users Tax one-half percent (1/2%) on Telephone, Electricity, Gas,
Water and Cable Television." Introduced. [See paragraph 90-634]
90-638 Consideration of an amendment to Transient Occupancy Tax
Ordinance.
President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
September 4, 1990
298
On the call for proponents the following persons:
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated perhaps the tax
could be used for funding the needy, e.g., homeless, Meals on
Wheels.
Charles Douglas, Manager, Islander Motel, Alameda, stated there is
an exemption for persons on official business; all military
personnel stationed locally are on official business and should
receive an exemption.
President Corica stated he would also like to see the private
sector assist by perhaps lowering the price of rooms for the
military.
Mr. Douglas stated if the exemption is passed he will lower his
price [for the military].
Diane Coler -Dark, 2857 Jackson Street, stated she is not opposed to
the increase and stated the tax benefits in the report on the
Ballena Hotel [See Paragraph 90 -640, Appeal] are not based on
market study.
Councilmember Withrow moved approval of increase from rate of eight
percent to ten percent and staff amend the ordinance to exempt
military personnel. Councilmember Camicia 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.
90 -639 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Title III, Chapter 14, Article 2, Section 3 -1421,
pertaining to increasing Transient Occupancy Tax and providing a
penalty clause for non - payment."
Councilmember Camicia moved introduction. Councilmember Withrow
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.
APPEALS
90 -640 Consideration of Appeal of Planning Board decision to
approve Planned Development Amendment, PDA -90 -7, for the Ballena
Isle Hotel, Conference Center, Office Buildings and Marina - related
Facilities. Location: Ballena Isle. Appellant: Elizabeth A.
Principato- Phipps for Alamedans for Responsible Planning.
President Corica explained the procedure of the Appeal.
The Planning Director reviewed the background of the matter.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's question regarding who will be
monitoring the speakers to determine if comments address what is on
the record, President Corica stated the Associate Planner would
September 4, 1990
299
monitor.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
The following persons spoke:
Richard Carlson, 169 Scenic Avenue, Piedmont, stated he believes
this is an opportunity for a real landmark and addition in Alameda,
and will create revenue for the City.
Charles Ormond, 1363 Crown Drive, requested Council support the
Planning Board's decision, creating something wonderful for
Alameda, and particularly West Alameda.
Virginia Fowler, 1001 Shoreline Drive, agreed with the previous
speaker and requested Council abide by Planning Board's decision.
Charles Fowler, 1001 Shoreline Drive, stated he favors the hotel,
change and growth is inevitable, the developer cooperates with the
City; and some traffic is caused by people going out of Alameda to
spend money, the hotel may bring money into Alameda.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, stated with the time and
effort expended to refine the project, he believes Alameda will be
receptive, the completion of the project is now imperative, and he
is in accord with the proposal.
James Oliver, Alameda, stated traffic is noisy on Ballena Boulevard
and the project would destroy the nature of Alameda.
Bruce Young, 328 Capetown Drive, Member, Alameda. Alliance of
Homeowners, stated the Alliance is not opposed to the concept of
well- integrated hotels, businesses, etc.; expressed concerns
regarding traffic, and stated the project should be returned to the
Planning Board to allow citizens more input.
Thomasina Woida, 1210 Porta Ballena, addressed office space,
parking, the 1989 EIR and 1990 Addendum to the report; and
requested Council deny the project or remand it to the Planning
Board.
Elizabeth Phipps, Appellant, 536 Kings Road, stated developers had
noted she did not bring the Appeal properly; it is true she did
not state specific findings but listed findings she felt were not
considered; believes CEQA has not been complied with; believes
the [Planning Board] decision is unsupported by evidence; did not
receive Addendum to EIR in time to consider impacts; there should
have been a supplemental EIR as there were substantial changes;
and requested the matter be sent back to the Planning Board, to
allow proper time to address the issues.
Jenise Porter, 1067 Mangrove Lane, noted several organizations
would have used the hotel site proposed had the facilities been
there, dislikes going out of Alameda for facilities, and opposed
the Appeal.
September 4, 1990
300
Robert Partridge, 429 Cola Ballena, stated he has lived in Ballena
Bay since 1969 when he was informed the hotel site would be
developed as now described; he has been waiting for it; would
like to house clients in Alameda; and noted if yacht harbor fails,
so will property values.
Ben Lopez, 2200 Central Avenue, United Pilipinos of Alameda, stated
his support for the project; believes the hotel will not only
generate revenue but will help people and reduce homelessness by
generating jobs; and urged Council's support.
Douglas Haines, Alameda, stated the project is excellent, and
requested Council support the Planning Board and deny the Appeal.
Russell Reed, 1200 Ballena Blvd., stated opposition to hotel
construction because lands should be used only for maritime and
water - oriented purposes, referred to master lease, and stated hotel
should be denied.
Kathleen Browne, 814 Ironwood Road, urged voting against hotel
project; stated traffic problems could develop, persons cannot be
hired from Alameda only; banquet room needs do not warrant the
complex, and believes a little of spirit of Alameda will be lost.
Diane Brach, 546 Kings Road, stated she does not believe Planning
Board's approval has considered its own findings; cited some
findings, and addressed marketing and traffic concerns.
Christopher Hanson, Alamaeda, stated the hotel would benefit the
West End redevelopment process and urged Council support the
project.
Armiger Bill Dredge, 1136A Ballena Blvd., stated traffic is not a
valid complaint in the area; the hotel site has not been
maintained for years; the project is good and would benefit
Alameda.
Jane Brown, 1415 Broadway, Manager, Alameda Hotel, noted the
Alameda Hotel has banquet facilities, there are accommodations
within the City; the proposed hotel would be a lovely addition but
is not needed, and she would like Alameda to remain a small town.
Del Blaylock, 1170 Island Drive, Greater Alameda Business
Association, implored Council deny Appeal, commending Planning
Board for efforts, studies and analyses; stated many organizations
could benefit by use of hotel, and requested Council support
Planning Board decision.
John Ravet, 1816 St. Charles Street, stated it is time to look at
benefits the proposed hotel would bring to Alameda; noted
difficulty of finding meeting places for organizations; and
requested Council support Planning Board decision.
Martha Beazley, Alameda, Member, Planning Board, stated the hotel
is needed in Alameda, the Developer has been cooperative; all
meetings were noticed and open to public input; the Planning Board
September 4, 1990
301
has extensively studied and reviewed the matter and it is time to
move ahead.
Joyce Linney, 542 Queens Road, stated she opposes the hotel; the
area is too small for the project; discussed marketing; stated
the project could fail, and traffic could be a problem.
Benny Williams, 1098 Sherman Street, stated he owns a convenience
store at Ballena Bay, there is a great need for increased business
and he cannot think of anything better than the proposed hotel
project.
Martha O'Hayer, Alameda, stated she believes the project would be
good for the City; a quality hotel and facilities for events is
needed; and the project would provide jobs and revenue.
Zino Connors, 735 Plamera Court, stated he believes that John
Desmond [Developer] has good business sense, has been cooperative
with the Planning Board, and will do a good job, and it is time for
the hotel to be built.
Steve Atkinson, Attorney, Baker & McKenzie, Two Embarcadero, San
Francisco, thanked Planning Board, staff and citizens for input and
support; stated the project is the product of a four -year process
and is finely -tuned to meet concerns of staff and citizens; all
notice procedures were followed; key improvements are design,
large open space, etc; benefits to the City are high quality
meeting and banquet facilities, quality hotel, employment
opportunity, 6.5 acres of publicly accessable open space developed
at no cost to the City, new office space, consistent with Tidelands
Act; Tidelands site cannot be used for residential, traffic issue
has been studied; and a number of mitigation measures, endorsed by
staff as being effective, have been endorsed.
Harry Nelson, 1150 Ballena Blvd., stated the proposed project is
the first step in a long process to bring to the City a first class
marina with amenities, and requested Council support the proposed
hotel.
June Catalano, Director of Planning, Baker & McKenzie, Attorneys at
Law, Two Embarcadero, San Francisco, representing Applicant, stated
project will generate almost $600,000 a year in revenue to the
City; the EIR was done by an independent consultant; the hotel
project will also pay for police and fire services, affordable
housing, road improvement and other services, development and
maintenance of 6.5 acres of open space, ongoing lease payments;
the island was constructed by the original leaseholder at no cost
to the City, current Applicant paid the value of the work when
assuming the lease; the island is subject to erosion and must be
maintained by the lessee, as well as dredging and maintenance of
the roadway, and at the end of the lease period, all improvements
will revert to the City.
Debra Weiss, 1361 Crown Drive, stated she is in favor of the
project and would appreciate Council's support.
September 4, 1990
302
Sherwood Stockwell, San Francisco, stated he and Gary Fong, the
project architects, are present to answer any questions.
At Councilmember Camicia's request, Mr. Stockwell compared the
open space in the current proposal to the previous one, pointing
out the area, on drawings, noting that previously there was a
restaurant, two office buildings and some parking in the open space
area.
John Desmond, 1150 Ballena Blvd., stated he, as a developer, has
been in the hotel business twenty years, and believes this is one
of the best he has ever worked on; the project the elements of
success as it has location, view and amenities of the yacht harbor;
City organizations want facilities; the hotel has been downsized,
a new architectural firm was selected whose experience in hotel
design is unique; Mr. Stockwell's Inn at Spanish Bay in Pebble
Beach, CA, has won nationwide recognition and awards, and has been
very successful.
Stan Shane, 470 Cola Ballena, stated he would like the project
remanded back to the Planning Board, questioned what hotel costs
there may be to the City, and commented on mitigations.
Diane Coler -Dark, 2857 Jackson Avenue, stated interested parties
were not informed, no hotel and office building market study was
done; addressed transient occupancy tax, and marketing study; is
not against development at the Ballena Bay site, but believes there
should be proper market studies.
President Corica noted Ms. Phipps's statements concerning the
addendum to the EIR, and requested further comment; to which Ms.
Phipps stated the addendum could only be used for minor changes to
the draft EIR and if major changes are to be made in a project, a
supplemental EIR must be made; there should have been a full
hearing on the addendum and there was no notice on the addendum.
Councilmember Thomas inquired if staff or the Board refused to
consider EIR problems, to which Ms. Phipps replied staff's
response was that the project was substantially redesigned
subsequent to the first denial in 1989, because of this redesign
the previous findings justifying denial were, in the judgment of
the Planning Board and Planning Department, no longer applicable
and therefore were not addressed.
Councilmember Camicia requested staff address CEQA Section 15163
and explain the difference between supplements to an EIR and an
addendum to an EIR and why the addendum was chosen.
President Corica requested an attorney's opinion on the legality of
the handling of the addendum, and the City Attorney stated she had
reviewed the issue and it is her opinion the process is correct,
and there has been compliance with CEQA and the EIR.
The Associate Planner replied when staff discussed substantial
change to the project, the change referred to was reduction of
proposed project impacts, and projects can always be mitigated by
September 4, 1990
303
reducing impacts without requiring a new EIR; it is on that basis
staff believed it was appropriate to do an addendum as opposed to a
supplemental EIR.
Councilmember Thomas stated the Appellant had cited the case of
Inyo and requested an opinion.
Councilmember Camicia read CEQA Section 15164 3(b), stating, "An
addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the final EIR," and stated that appears
clear to him.
Councilmember Withrow requested Mr. Atkinson to comment on the
issue.
Mr. Atkinson replied CEQA guidelines establish specific criteria
when a supplement EIR is required, generally a change in the
project which will create significant new impacts; in this case
the project was downsized, has more open space, everything about
the current proposal is of lesser impact than the prior proposal,
and many changes were architectural and are not subject to a
supplemental EIR; and the case cited is out of context.
Councilmember Thomas referred to page 4 of the addendum to the EIR
regarding Tidelands used for office space and stated Council needs
to have an independent staff opinion.
The Associate Planner stated one of the conditions of approval
added by Planning Board, at staff's recommendation, is that prior
to any lease being offered to any office tenant, the operator of
the complex must provide information to the City to allow the City '
to make an independent judgment as to whether the City is
comfortable that the office's proposed use is consistent with the
State Tidelands Act, and the State Tidelands Commission's approved
list of offices would be relied upon.
Councilman Arnerich moved the meeting continue past 11:00 p.m.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
To Councilmember Thomas's question, the Assistant Planner noted the
office use question is Condition No. 58, of Attachment 4 of
Council's packet, which is Planning Board Resolution 2084.
The City Attorney stated that through her experience with the State
Lands Commission and in cities of Newport Beach and Santa Monica
with tidelands buildings, office use is a permitted use, and a
State Lands Commission attorney has assured her the office use is a
permitted use.
Councilmember Thomas stated the question of the law office, a
delicatessen, etc., are questions she has; and the Assistant
September 4, 1990
304
Planner replied that would depend upon the individual case, if
the business is marine - oriented.
President Corica discussed traffic concerns and noted there are 300
units of Navy housing, Todd Shipyard, Paragon development, and the
reopening of Paden School to be considered, and he believes traffic
will be an issue.
Under discussion following concerns expressed by President Corica
regarding a "private road" sign on the property, Mr. Atkinson
stated the sign means "private" in terms of maintenance, however,
it will be changed to avoid misinterpretation.
Councilman Arnerich suggested the sign be taken down.
Councilmember Withrow stated he agrees the sign is misleading, and
would encourage owners to remove the sign.
Councilmember Camicia stated he has worked on the hotel project
when he was on the Planning Board; a lot of time, over the years,
has been spent discussing environmental impact; the Applicant
obtained an EIR although it was not required; he reviewed the
background of the project; noted the Planning Board resolution
contains 52 findings and 76 conditions, and is very stringent;
reviewed and addressed issues of the Appeal presented by Ms.
Phipps; stated the project is very good for Alameda; and he will
support it.
President Corica commented that there has been reference in the
addendum to traffic and doing an annual Traffic Systems Management
[TSM] survey of employees, however the City does not yet have a TSM
ordinance.
Councilmember Camicia noted the traffic conditions are very
stringent and will precede the ordinance.
The Associate Planner noted the traffic requirements will apply
whether or not the City adopts a TSM ordinance; if the City adopts
a tougher ordinance, that ordinance would apply; and the goals and
penalties are the toughest he is aware of in any other ordinances
in the State.
Councilmember Thomas stated the City owns the property and gets
only $26,000 a year; believes the lease should be renegotiated,
suggested terminating the lease; addressed the waste stream; she
would like the matter referred to the Planning Board for analysis
of impact on the Farmers Market, would like the lease referred to
outside counsel for review to see if the City can get more money,
and if the City can get the hotel free of charge when the lease
runs out; noted Marina Village has a good project but cancelled
its plans for a hotel and wondered if the developer had done a
marketing study; and she would like included in the record that
she, and other Councilmembers, had each received notes from the
Developer, stating if there were questions, please contact them
[developer], and she does not believe that is appropriate.
September 4, 1990
305
Councilman Arnerich stated people opposed South Shore but the taxes
saved the City; reviewed other areas of the City's growth; since
completion of Constitution Way, traffic on Webster Street is down
20 to 35 percent; the hotel project has taken many years and
should be acted upon; he would like to see developers hire Alameda
persons and perhaps give the City an accounting at the end of the
year; would like to see all Alameda organizations given
opportunity to use the facilities; Council has studied the matter,
and Planning Board has extensively studied the matter.
Councilman Arnerich inquired if the rates on the lease are firm, to
which the City Manager replied they are firm unless there can be
renegotiation.
Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to have outside counsel
review the lease.
President Corica inquired if Mr. Nelson would be interested in
renegotiating the lease, and Mr. Nelson replied he would not.
Councilmember Withrow stated the project has strong broad-based
public support including support in the Ballena Bay area;
residents have stressed having facilities in Alameda; he believes
the project will provide jobs for Alamedans, the hotel has a
beautiful location and strong hotel manager, will be a positive
impact on the West End, an enhancement to the City; and the
Planning Board has worked diligently for a number of years, has
kept a clear scope on its goals, and is a credit to the individuals
involved and to the City.
Councilmember Withrow moved to deny the Appeal and provide support
for the time, effort and decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion.
Councilman Arnerich stated he will support that motion on the
following two conditions: 1) that every effort be made to hire
local citizens and perhaps at the end of the year, show they have
made a definite commitment; and 2) that every effort be made to
give preference to local civic groups, e.g., use of the facilities.
Councilmember Withrow stated he would amend his motion accordingly.
Mr. Nelson stated he agrees with the conditions and noted there
are consistently ads being run in the Alameda newspaper for local
help.
Councilmember Camicia stated in regard to the first condition, that
the phrase "to whatever extent legal," be included in order to
avoid any legal impropriety.
The City Attorney stated every effort, meaning "best effort," will
suffice.
Councilman Arnerich agreed that it is his intent, that there be
social responsibility including costs involved in fund raising.
September 4, 1990
306
President Corica noted he has traffic concerns and he will be
voting no on the project for that reason.
Councilmember Thomas stated she will be voting no because she
believes this is the height of fiscal irresponsibility to the
voters.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia and Withrow - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Thomas and President Corica - 2. Absent: None.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
90-641 From Finance Committee regarding driving under the influence
cost recovery program.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-642 From Public Works Director on the proposed mitigation
program to reduce seismic hazards in unreinforced masonry
buildings. (SB-547)
President Corica commented a draft ordinance is needed; noted that
former Committee Members Scott Brady and Linda Soulages have agreed
to act as advisors; and letters of appreciation should be written
to former URM Committee Members.
James Thompson, 3231 Calhoun Street, reported on the meeting held
with the Public Works Director, and inquired concerning the
re-examination of the URM buildings list.
The Public Works Director responded that the re-examination has
already begun.
Wil Garfinkle, 2515 Blanding Avenue, URM property owner, made
suggestions concerning meeting State requirements, suggested a
little more time be spent to refine the ordinance, and thanked
Council for its objectivity.
Herbert Von Coldnitz, 233 Brighton Court, stated as retired
professional consulting engineer, he appreciates the problems of
strengthening, reinforcing and financing URM buildings but is
familiar with disasters that result from not strengthening, and
noted massive financial losses in revenue to Santa Cruz and to the
businesses.
Councilmember Withrow stated requirements must be kept separate
from financial problems; Council needs to charge the Committee,
identifying what it wants the Committee to do; a dedicated
Committee with a professional consultant drafted the [proposed]
ordinance, and the ordinance is to be amended, not redrafted; he
would like to have a committee that will focus on the financial
aspects of the matter; and stated wherever in the [staff's]
recommendations the words "alternative draft ordinance" appear, the
September 4, 1990
307
words "proposed amendments" should be substituted.
President Corica stated he does not agree with Councilmember
Withrow's suggestion for a separate finance committee; believes
the former Committee's work should be retained and utilized
wherever possible; perhaps the matter could be reviewed in a month
and a finance committee be formed at that time if needed.
Councilman Arnerich agreed that the recommendation should be
accepted and staff should report back in 30 days. Councilmember
Camicia seconded the motion.
The City Manager noted the concern as voiced by Councilmember
Withrow regarding the phrase "alternate draft ordinance" and stated
perhaps the words "amendments to the ordinance" could be used.
Council by consensus agreed.
The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-643 From Public Works Director recommending adoption of plans
and specifications and calling for bids for repair and resurfacing
of certain streets, Phase 12, No. P.W. 8-90-13.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, questioned the materials
used for resurfacing.
The Public Works Director noted the same aggregate is being used as
during the past several years.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-644 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of the
improvements and release of bond for Tract 5716 (Alameda Marina
Village).
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, discussed condominiums as
opposed to multiple dwellings.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-645 From Public Works Director, regarding Ballena Bay Townhouse
Association's Application for a permit to perform maintenance
dredging.
John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, inquired if an (EIR)
Environmental Impact Report is needed for the permit to dredge.
The Public Works Director replied there is no requirement for an
EIR with the small amount of dredging being considered.
The City Attorney added that CEQA exempts maintenance dredging.
September 4, 1990
308
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -646 From Recreation and Parks Director recommending
authorization of expenditure of grant funds for child care services
from the State Department of Education.
Councilmember Thomas commented additional funding is necessary for
child care services, suggested Girls Club provide a shuttle service
for various K through 5 schools, and requested funding sources be
explored; noted 1989 was the highest birth rate year for the City;
the child care situation will worsen; and the recommendation is a
great step but is not enough.
The City Manager said staff would report back on the matter.
Councilmember Camicia moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
90 -647 From Planning Director setting a hearing date for Appeal of
Variance V -90 -15 to permit the construction of a chain link fence
around the softball /soccer field at the proposed Tillman Park at
the corner of Aughinbaugh Way and Kofman Parkway where Zoning
Ordinance Section 11- 14A7(j) does not allow chain link fences on
residentially zoned or developed properties.
Richard Roth, 1417 - 5th Street, stated he would like Council to
review the policy banning chain link fences because he believes
there are appropriate uses in appropriate places and the ordinance
needs to be reviewed.
Councilmember Thomas stated she agrees with the need for chain link
fences in certain instances, e.g., for swimming pools.
Councilmember Thomas moved acceptance of the report and
recommendation. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which
was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Thomas stated Council should reconsider section of
the Zoning Ordinance which addresses chain link fences.
RESOLUTIONS
90 -648 Resolution No. 12012. "Authorizing the purchase of a
Communications Control Center System for the Police Department
pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter." Adoption.
Councilmember Thomas stated she would abstain for reasons stated
earlier (See *90 -629 and 90 -633), on advice of counsel.
Councilmember Withrow moved adoption. Councilmember Camicia
seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow, and President
September 4, 1990
309
Corica - 4. Noes: None, Absent: None, Abstentions:
Councilmember Thomas - 1.
90-649 Resolution No. 12013. "Determining that a project area
committee shall not be formed in connection with the Business and
Waterfront Improvement Project (because substantial residential
displacement not involved)." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia moved adoption. Councilmember Withrow
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.
90-650 Resolution No. 12014. "Denying Appeal of Planning Board
Resolution No. 2064, and approving Negative Declaration IS-90-2,
Use Permit, UP-90-7, Use Permit 90-8, and Final Development Plan,
FDP-90-1, for the proposed Harbor Bay Ferry Terminal at McCartney
Road on the western shoreline of Bay Farm Island." Adopted.
Councilman Arnerich moved adoption. Councilmember Withrow seconded
the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
90-651 Ordinance No. • N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by adding Chapter 16 to Title III thereof, providing for the
City of Alameda Special Tax Financing Law, including General
Provisions and Definitions, Powers and Procedures to issue Special
Tax Bonds for the purpose of providing financing for Specified
Purposes, and certain other Supplemental Provisions. (Paragon
Development) (Community Facilities District No. 2) (Mello-Roos)."
Introduced.
Councilmember Camicia moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmemlber Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
90-652 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Title IX, Chapter 1, Article 4, Section 9-1411
pertaining to Certificates required for vaccination of dogs."
Introduced.
Councilmember Camicia moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
90-653 Councilmember Camicia requested Council to write the
District Attorney's Office regarding the lenient sentence given the
drunk driver who killed Nancymarie Van Praag.
President Corica agreed a letter should be written.
Councilman Arnerich stated particularly in this case, it is
important to write because this person had been released by the
September 4, 1990
310
court system many times before the incident in question occurred.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA ITEMS
90-654 Christopher Hanson noted various areas of concern regarding
Councilmember Thomas.
ADJOURNMENT
President Corica adjourned the meeting at 12:38 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
i-i, Ii
DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
This agenda was posted 72 hours in advance.
September 4, 1990