1988-05-17 Regular CC Minutes144
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY MAY 17, 1988
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. (at the conclusion of the
Community Improvement Commission meeting and the Annual Industrial
Development Authority meeting) with President Corica presiding. The
Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Haugner. Rev.
Wilfred Hodgkin gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, Monsef,
Thomas, and President Corica - 5.
Absent: None.
MINUTES
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to approve the minutes of the
Regular Council Meeting of May 3, 1988. Councilmember Monsef
seconded the meeting and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*88-329 From Finance Director on City's Investment Portfolio as of
April 30, 1988.
*88-330 From Public Works Director on the airport hot line activity
and recommendation for discontinuing operation.
*88-301a From Public Works Director on status of Carnegie Library
Building seismic upgrade.
*88-302a From Public Works Director recommending changes in the
method of allocating sewer service fees.
RESOLUTIONS
*88-303a Resolution No. 11464 "Designating the Park Avenue Heritage
Area." Adopted.
*88-304a Resolution No. 11465 "Increasing Public Works Department
Petty Cash Fund." Adopted.
*88-305a Resolution No. 11466 "Authorizing inter-fund loans from
Workers Compensation Fund to fund Doolittle Landfill Site Project."
Adopted.
*88-306a Resolution No. 11467 "Awarding contract to Jardin
Pipeline, Inc. for San Antonio Sanitary Sewer replacement, P.W.
No. 10-87-23, and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
MAY 17 198B
145
*88-307a Resolution No. 11468 "Preliminarily approving Annual
Report, declaring intention to order levy and collection of
assessments and providing for Notice of Hearing thereof, Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2." Adopted.
*88-308a Resolution No. 11469 "Authorizing destruction of certain
City Clerk Department obsolete records." Adopted.
*88-309a Resolution No. 11470 "Approving the Filing of Application
for elective coverage under State Disability Insurance for all
A.C.E.A. covered employees pursuant to Section 710.5 of the
California Unemployment Insurance Code." Adopted.
*88-310a Resolution No. 11471 "Authorizing application for Fiscal
Year 1988-89 Rental Rehabilitation Grant Funds and authorizing
execution of Certifications and Grant Agreement." Adopted.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
*88-311a Ordinance No. 2382, N.S. "Amending Title V, Section
5-152, of the Alameda Municipal Code; Section 4 of Ordinance No.
2250; and Section 304(e)2 of the Uniform Building Code providing
quadruple penalties for working without permits." Adopted.
*88-312a Ordinance No. 2383, N.S. "Reclassifying and rezoning of
certain property within the City of Alameda by amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. Applicant: Shito Sakai, R-88-1; the lot
located at 627 Pacific Avenue." Adopted.
*88-313a Ordinance No. 2384, N.S. "Amending Title XVII of the
Alameda Municipal Code to establish a two-hour zone in front of 512
Westline Drive." Adopted.
*88-314a Ordinance No. 2385, N.S. "Amending Title XVII of the
Alameda Municipal Code to establish all-stop signing at the
intersections of Broadway at Bayview Drive and Court Street at
Bayview Drive." Adopted.
*88-315a Ordinance No. 2386, N.S. "Amending Title XVII of the
Alameda Municipal Code to establish Parking Meter Zones on the west
side of Webster Street between Pacific and Buena Vista Avenues."
Adopted.
BILLS
*88-316a A List of Claims, certified by the Interim City Manager as
correct, was approved in the amount of $2,303,032.14.
******************
RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA
88-317a From City Attorney regarding Harbor Bay Isle Associates'
Stipulation.
President Corica requested the City Attorney explain the Court Order
MAY 1 7 1988
16
affecting this matter.
The City Attorney explained that the project [Harbor Bay Isle
PDA-87-6] that was approved had two Conditions on it that were not
related to the project area but to off-site areas, and the question
was whether the project should proceed or not with those two
Conditions which were challenged; the Court found that proceeding
with the project would not harm the City because the two Conditions
being challenged are off-site; the Court stayed the enforcement of
those two Conditions until there can be a trial on the merits; the
project would proceed in the normal course of events; and
therefore, the Stipulation is a moot question and does not need to
be considered tonight.
President Corica stated if persons present wish to speak, they may,
but the matter has been handled; he read the names from the speaker
slips on the subjects; and the persons indicated they need not
speak.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
88-318a From David 0. Plummer, 1401 High Street, concerning the
Library dilemma.
Mr. Plummer stated there has been a continuing problem regarding
the location of the library; suggested first, obtaining the Outback
property; second, getting the Nazarene Church to agree to move
their building and congregation to that site as their present
building without the garage is 45'x 70' and could fit there; third,
(endorsed in 1983 by the Historical Advisory Commission) build an
annex on the present Carnegie Library; and fourth, allow the church
to use the leftover property beyond the annex (95'x100'); believes
most people would like to see the Carnegie Building retained; a
cost estimate is $4,700,000 which is less, and/or competitive with
previous Library Board endorsements.
Councilmember Haugner stated she would like the suggestion
considered when Council and Library Board meet again.
President Corica agreed, commenting that all sites proposed should
be considered.
Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the communication.
Councilmember Haugner seconded and the motion was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
88-319a From Ed Pereira, Neptune's Galleon, Pacific Marina,
regarding discriminatory conditions and possible eviction.
President Corica stated Mr. Pereira believes he is being moved out
of the Galleon and that his business is being hurt by some of the
construction in the area; Marina Village has replied; and he hopes
Marina Village and Mr. Pereira can get together and work things out
just as it was done with regard to sign problems in the past.
Councilmember Thomas stated she would like Council to require large
developments to retain a certain percentage of locally-owned
MAY 1 7 1988
147
businesses (e.g., square footage, straight percentage or priority)
in Planned Development applications.
Councilmember Camicia agreed that it is well worth investigating.
President Corica suggested the Interim City Manager investigate
possible alternative methods to keep locally-owned businesses in the
City of Alameda.
Councilmember Haugner noted letters were received from other
businesses stating things were going well; it would be good for
them to get together; and made a motion to accept the
communication.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
HEARINGS
88-320a Consideration of an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1988-89
Statement of Community Development Objectives allocating $9,466 in
CDBG/UDAG Loan Repayment Funds to the Four Bridges Program.
President Corica noted when Council approved the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for this year, it was believed
the Four Bridges Program was cared for, but it wasn't, and that is
the reason for the hearing.
President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing.
The public portion of the hearing was opened.
On the call for proponents, there were none.
On the call for opponents, there were none.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
Councilmember Camicia requested the Community Development Director
state the amount of the total funds of the business associations and
organizations this year and whether or not there is an increase over
last year, to which the Director responded that the amount is
$397,120, and there is an increase over last year.
Councilmember Camicia stated he believes Option 1 [Imposing a 5.93%
reduction on UDAG-funded business organizations and associations. .
.] is the most easily executed option because the level of funds are
most manageable; and moved that be done. Councilmember Haugner
seconded the motion.
Councilmember Thomas stated two presidents of business associations
informed her they have long-term proposals to create an assessment
district, and are opposed to a cut; she would like the Housing
Authority counseling funds cut, there are potential conflicts of
interest; the Housing Authority is taking on extra duties; and if
those are handled well, they can request next year that Council
consider the housing counseling possibilities; and suggested taking
MAY 17 1988
148
money from the Shared Housing/Counseling Program to fund Four
Bridges, and put whatever is left in the CDBG contingency fund
without taking away from the business community.
Councilmember Camicia stated Park Street, for example, received
$5,000 more this year than last year; it does not seem that the
Housing program should be damaged in order to help with advertising
funds; the business communities are receiving over $300,000 this
year; and the choice is providing housing counseling for people who
need it and perhaps cannot afford an attorney, or taking out of the
budget of business associations.
President Corica stated he understands the Vice-Mayor's position;
that perhaps the Housing Authority's computerization and upgrading
of the lists will mean that a person can be eliminated from the
Housing Authority instead of adding a person; and he has a concern
about the Housing Authority policing itself.
Councilmember Camicia stated it is the responsibility of the
community to provide help in housing, that when senior citizens in
this community come for help, they should not be told they must
check with the County.
Councilmember Monsef stated it is not that simple, staff is
proposing a temporary solution to a major problem, the future of the
program is uncertain, and counseling could expose the Housing
Authority to liability.
Councilmember Thomas stated Council could fund Four Bridges [$9466],
and delete the housing counseling for the Housing Authority.
Councilmember Haugner stated Council is discussing $397,000 for the
business community and $9400 for Four Bridges and cannot see that
$9400 would hurt the business community very much; and would like
to have had the business community present to talk about the matter.
Councilmember Camicia's motion failed by the following roll call
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Noes:
Councilmembers Monsef and Thomas and President Corica - 3. Absent:
None.
Councilmember Thomas moved that Four Bridges be funded for $9466,
$26,000 be deleted from the Housing Authority and the remainder of
the $26,000 placed in the CDBG contingency fund. Councilmember
Monsef seconded the motion.
President Corica stated he would also like the Community Development
Director to return to Council with options on what to do with the
deleted funds and how that will be addressed.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Monsef, Thomas and President Corica - 3. Noes:
Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Absent: None.
Councilmember Camicia thanked those business associations and
organizations that were willing to make some cuts.
MAY 1 7 1988
149
APPEALS
88-321a Appeal of Planning Board decision to approve a Negative
Declaration, IS-88-6, for Design Review application DR-88-9, for an
8,200 square foot addition in two floors, plus completion of 6,000
square feet of existing shell space at Alameda Hospital. Applicant:
Alameda Hospital. Appellant: Patrick J. Maloney.
President Corica stated he would abstain on this issue as he has a
son that works for the Alameda Hospital.
President Corica explained the procedure of the Appeal.
The Planning Director explained the background of the matter, noting
the only City approval required in this case, is a Design Review
approval and that approval is not in question; what is in question
is the action of the Planning Board in consideration and approval of
the Negative Declaration for this particular project of the
hospital; building permits etc., are controlled by the State.
The City Attorney added that the Appeal includes an allegation that
the Planning Board should have reviewed evidence; and the Appellant
has the burden of proof that he was improperly denied the right to
present evidence to the Planning Board and therefore has the right
to present it to Council.
Patrick J. Maloney, 620 Glenwood Isle, stated his home is across
the lagoon from the hospital; would like an extension to 30 days to
prepare for the hearing; stated the hospital was permitted to use
the 1925 building and he believes that it may be in direct violation
of law but will not be able to prove that until the file is received
from the State Archives; that he has requested that an EIR be
prepared on the site.
Councilmember Camicia inquired if the evidence or information Mr.
Maloney is procuring can be reviewed by Council.
The City Attorney commented Mr. Maloney is addressing a prior
application and as to this appeal, the question is whether the
initial study was adequate and if it is correct.
Mr. Maloney stated there was another issue also: whether or not
this is all part of a phased project.
The Planning Director stated the Negative Declaration is based on
the current uses of the various Hospital buildings; and the project
was an addition to the South Wing.
The City Attorney added that the use of that wing is permitted by
the City zoning ordinance, from which the Hospital is not exempt.
Mary Ann Maloney, 628 Glenwood Isle, stated her concern that the
Hospital is placing nuclear medicine on filled land and very close
to the lagoon; that the noise of construction is very loud; that
the pile-driving causes cracks in their walls.
The public portion of the hearing was closed.
MAY 1 7 1988
150
Councilmember Camicia inquired if the matter could be held over
until Mr. Malony gets his additional information, to which the City
Attorney stated that it is a matter of reasonableness.
President Corica stated he is aware members of the Hospital are
present and questioned if one of them would care to speak.
Mr. Maloney further commented on the hospital and an EIR and traffic
impact.
President Corica inquired how moving radiology from one building to
another would provide more traffic.
Mr. Maloney responded that there would be more services, the
position 5 years ago was that the environment would not take a whole
medical facility and there should be an EIR; the response to that
was the 1925 building would not be used; now it is being used which
tends to indicate a phased project, for which there should be an EIR
on the whole site.
Sam Young, 530 Queens Road, Davis, Young and Mendelson, attorney for
Alameda Hospital, stated it is the first time the City has required
a Negative Declaration on an initial study for design review
purposes; the procedures followed by the Hospital have been proper
and legal; the City has control through zoning ordinance; there is
not a phased plan; many factors in the future will impact what is
going to happen on the Hospital site; the Hospital has no plan,
therefore there cannot be an EIR on a non-existent plan; that
Hanson & Bridgett has stated that the current use of the Hospital,
the new wing and the 1925 building, are in full compliance with the
law; the issue is: what is the use now, the benefit for Alameda,
and the interests to be weighed; regarding nuclear medicine, it is
necessary for accreditation; only a miniscule amount of
well-protected radioactive material is on-site, and there is no
possibility even in earthquake, of any going into the lagoon or the
Bay; and time is now crucial for the construction of the Hospital
addition.
Councilmember Camicia commented he would like to see Council avoid
what is probably going to be another lawsuit; would like Council to
get Mr. Maloney's information and determine at the next meeting
whether or not that information is applicable.
Councilmember Monsef commented he does not see any lawsuit; if it's
something new, it has to go to the Planning Board now.
President Corica commented Council cannot be afraid of suits; and
needs to make decision as to whether Planning Board acted correctly
or not.
Councilmember Thomas inquired if the City would be the real party,
to which the City Attorney replied the Hospital would be.
Councilmember Thomas noted the Hospital would be doing the work.
Councilmember Camicia stated if Council allows Mr. Maloney to
MAY 1 7 1988
1 °51
gather his information, and then votes, Council will have covered
its bases and will have kept the Hospital out of Court.
Mr. Young agreed to the fact that three weeks would not unduly
upset the Hospital schedule, and the cost factor that could be
caused by an able opponent could far exceed the cost of a three -week
delay.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to hear the matter again at the
next meeting; allow Mr. Maloney to gather his information; and
determine at that time whether or not his information is applicable
in regard to this Appeal. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion
with the understanding that the hospital is agreeable to the delay.
The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, and Monsef - 3. Noes:
Councilmember Thomas - 1. Absent: None. Abstention: President
Corica - 1.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
88 -322a From Vice Mayor Thomas regarding the validity of the City's
General Plan.
Amey Stone, Peralta College District Board of Trustees, stated the
District has approved, and funded by the State in the amount of
$2,260,000, an 11,351 sq.ft. building, which must be at least well
underway in the coming year, and the Board is concerned about the
proposed moratorium; as to procedure, she would like clarification.
Councilmember Thomas stated the General Plan has some inadequacies,
her recommendation is to refer the Plan to the Planning Board staff
for review and a report on what is necessary to bring it into
compliance with State law; in order to mitigate any liability due
to the Plan's inadequacies, a building moratorium should be
considered until the Plan is updated; it is an informational report
tonight; Council has authorized money in the budget to do the
General Plan, and she wants to hear input.
Mrs. Stone stated her concern in procedure and the ultimate action
that must be taken; believes that a delay of even four months can
cause considerable cost; and does not want to see the building for
the college jeopardized.
Councilmember Camicia questioned if the moratorium was no longer the
recommendation, to which Councilmember Thomas replied there is
potential liability to the City and the Planning Board should review
the Plan.
Stephen Brimhall, 1141 Harbor Bay Parkway, stated he is a little
confused as the report requests a moratorium, and a quotation in the
newspaper noted a moratorium might be considered in order "to get
the land the City wants" and he submits that is the issue; that he
has met with the Mayor and wants to sit down and talk things
through, and has offered solutions to the problems, that the issue
is an extraction of 12 acres of land, and a moratorium is not the
answer.
May 17, 1988
Wayne Milani, 1310 Sherman Street, stated no one is opposed to
updating the General Plan and it can be done concurrent to present
construction, without punitive action taken against any developer in
the community; a moratorium will hurt projects not concerned with
HBI; spoke of conduct of Councilmembers; questioned if reports
from Councilmembers are in conflict with the Charter; stated he has
heard only three California cities have fully validated General
Plans, and someone should investigate that; and a staff memo notes
there has been ongoing work on the General Plan.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated the City has been
dragging its feet regarding the General Plan, and he would like to
see the matter expedited, and discussed HBI development.
Chris Zimmerman, 912 Delmar Avenue, Owner and Operator of The
Water's Edge Nursing Home at the Park Street Bridge, commented the
Home is in the process of planning a residential care facility for
the elderly in the Harbor Bay area and the proposed moratorium would
potentially harm that project from proceeding.
Don Patterson, 2424 Central Avenue, Alameda Board of Realtors (ABR),
questioned if Council should consider a moratorium; but if it does
it should supply the individuals and the ABR adequate time for a
response; as an individual, applauded efforts to update the General
Plan and stated moratoriums are not the way to take care of problems
and most often end up in litigation.
Gerhard Degemann, 19 Sandpiper Place, stated Council was elected to
do what is best for the City of Alameda.
John Adams, McCutcheon, Doyle, Brown & Enerson, 1855 Olympic Blvd.,
Walnut Creek, Attorneys, on behalf of Marina Village, agreed that if
the City's General Plan is not consistent with State law it should
be promptly corrected but does not believe a moratorium is in the
City's best interest; stated moratoriums sometimes may result in an
unlawful taking of a landowner's property, which can result in
damages; a moratorium will be detrimental to landowners throughout
the City, and significant staff time will be spent on it which could
be spent on the General Plan; and numerous cities have invalid
plans but moratoriums are not set.
Ed Marshall, 32 Wellfleet Bay, stated he believes he would benefit
personally from General Plan that exacts more from real estate
developers, but the end does not justify the means; moratoriums
cause unnecessary and unfair burden on developers who help build the
City, is an unconscionable exercise for the City for gain; he does
not want that kind of power exercised on his behalf; and believes
Council should vote against a moratorium which would be bad for the
City, residents, and for him personally.
P. Lawrence Klose, 99 Almaden Blvd., San Jose, stated he represents
A-M Homes which owns 3 subdivisions on HBI and has units applying
for permits and final agreements; a moratorium would be a
tremendous burden and detriment to his clients; the City will place
itself in great legal jeopardy if a moratorium is imposed at this
time; and as there is no present legal challenge to the General
May 17, 1988
Plan, it must be presumed valid.
Richard Love, President, Triton Biosciences, 1501 Harbor Bay Blvd.,
noted progress of the business in medical products; stated the
company has an expansion of plans underway, expect to apply for
permits this summer, provide employment and taxes for Alameda, and
the impact of a moratorium on them would be to look outside of
Alameda for planning, and possible removal of the company from the
community, and the moratorium is coming at a very bad time for them.
Don Parker, Alameda Marina Village (AMV), commented it is important
to separate the effects of the moratorium from the conflict with
HBI, believes Council has been fair to AMV, and AMV has been fair
with the City; a moratorium would forestall ability to plan for the
future and would have grave impact on people not caught up in the
conflict, e.g., persons who want to do an alteration on their home
or marina slip; hopes Council can work out differences, and hopes
for the best for this community.
Councilmember Thomas stated the General Plan is the issue; there
are developments that are too dense; commercial areas need to be
developed, etc. the City has failed to plan; the City staff should
update the Plan; and if the moratorium is something the Planning
Board can consider, that is up to them.
Councilmember Haugner requested the City Attorney's opinion.
The City Attorney replied Council is discussing a police power and
someone needs to be very clear about what is being done and why; a
pragmatic approach should be taken; it is his opinion a General
Plan will take 3-4 years to do and take a half million dollars; the
Planning Board may be overwhelmed, so someone must be specific about
what to do; the first thing the Planning Board must do is find what
the issues are and identify what goal is involved in amending the
Plan; and doing the whole plan would require a tremendous amount of
resources.
President Corica inquired if the City is bound by law to update the
General Plan, to which the City Attorney responded that it is, but a
moratorium is not the way to do it.
Councilmember Camicia stated there is no analysis from the staff on
the report to assist Councilmembers; if the moratorium is not
passed, someone may sue as the Plan is not updated but if the
moratorium is passed there are six to eight attorneys present who
will definitely sue the City.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to send the General Plan to the
Planning Board, request they bring back a report that determines
what level of revisions Council needs to make, if any, ask the staff
to do a cost analysis of what that will cost, and no moratorium.
Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion.
Councilmember Monsef stated he does not agree; that specific
direction should be given to the Planning Board within a specific
timeframe; perhaps they should look at all the issues, facts,
plusses and minuses, the risks, fair/unfair, and the moratorium, and
May 17, 1988
154
then report back to Council for its decision.
President Corica agreed, stating he has no problem with sending it
to the Planning Board to report back with what they believe should
be addressed and whether or not they believe the moratorium will be
beneficial to updating the General Plan.
Councilmember Camicia stated all are aware the moratorium is
directed to Harbor Bay, and he is concerned about the City's
financial situation and that it has a weak legal position.
Councilmember Haugner stated she is pleased there appears to be no
legal challenge to the General Plan as it is now; that Council
should simply request the Planning Board look at the Plan, and take
into consideration what the City Attorney has said.
The motion failed by the following roll call vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Noes: Councilmembers
Monsef, Thomas and President Corica - 3. Absent: None.
Councilmember Monsef made a motion that the Vice-Mayor's
recommendation be forwarded in full to the Planning Board with a
request for a report. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and
it was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Monsef, Thomas and President Corica - 3. Noes:
Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Absent: None.
88-323a From Vice Mayor Thomas regarding Harbor Bay Isle Associates'
Environmental Impact Report.
The City Attorney noted Mr. Klose is the former City Attorney of
the cities of Petaluma and Davis.
P. Lawrence Klose, 99 Almaden Blvd., San Jose, stated regarding the
EIR that the A-M project (three subdivisions, Tracts 4024, 4025, and
4026) was approved and reviewed under the EIR by the City Council;
and is now ready to be developed; believes the general principle of
municipal law should be reiterated: that the actions of a City are
valid until someone challenges them and a Court declares them
invalid; the EIR as it relates to this project was valid when
approved, and he has heard of no challenge as it relates to the
projects; that CEQA has a strong policy of environmental review and
and also has a strong policy that needless repetition and redundant
review of environmental documents is not to be done; Council should
not go forward with an additional EIR; as to his client's project,
it has been approved for a long time, and the time for review is
long past.
Steve Brimhall, Exec. V-P of Doric Development, 1141 Harbor Bay
Parkway, stated he believes the issue is not the adequacy of Harbor
Bay's EIR, but the extortion of 12 acres of land; there have been a
number of supplements and updates to the EIR; the HBI project is
remarkably the same today as when approved in 1975, except it is
significantly less dense by about 31%; the Business Park generates
roughly $1,200,000 in property taxes, so it more than pays its way;
in addition, in the last two and one-half years, it has paid an
average of $1 million in various fees each year, the current
May 17, 1988
proposed plans for the full build-out of Harbor Bay are
significantly less than established by the EIR.
Councilmember Monsef stated there is no intention to take anything
from anyone, but just to get what the City is entitled to.
President Corica stated there would be no problem if the City was
just given the land it wants, and regarding the EIR, although it has
been updated, it is old.
Councilmember Thomas noted that Council is asking the developer to
pay for the initial costs of the public needs created; that the
real issue is whether or not the original EIR adequately identified
those; that in view of the previous report, there are some real
inadequacies in the commercial analyses that were made, which is
fine for Harbor Bay but not for the rest of the City and she is
asking the Planning Board to look at how that fits into the rest of
the City; and if the City is going to be able to revitalize Park
Street, Webster Street and expand some of the business districts.
Councilmember Haugner requested an opinion by the City Attorney.
The City Attorney replied the EIRs are a project's specific
documents and therefore it is usually done at the time a project is
before the Board; the Planning Board is designated as the one that
makes decisions related to EIRs, there is a great deal of latitude,
and the Board can request a supplement but would not be going back
and rewriting the EIR; and as far as land dedication is concerned,
a judge will probably decide that within the next three or four
months.
Councilmember Haugner stated it would seem to her that it might be a
good idea to put this off for a while, since the City is involved in
some litigation that might make a difference.
Councilmember Thomas stated one of the reasons she brought the
matter up is because it is another inadequacy of staff, in providing
opportunity to review EIRs, so she would like to give the Planning
Board the EIR and give them time to review.
The City Attorney stated his point is that one cannot measure the
adequacy of an EIR without a description of the project; the
Planning Board can work in advance, assuming they have time.
Councilmember Thomas stated she believes the Board needs to work on
the EIR in advance and now is as good a time as any; and made a
motion to approve the recommendation. Councilmember Monsef seconded
the motion.
The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Monsef, Thomas and President Corica - 3. Noes:
Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Absent: None.
RESOLUTIONS
88-324a Resolution No. 11472 "Amending Statement of Community
May 17, 1988
156
Development Objectives and Projected Use of Fiscal Year 1988-89 CDBG
and UDAG Loan Repayment Funds." Adopted.
Councilmember Monsef made a motion to adopt the resolution with
amendments as noted under the hearing (88-320). Councilmember
Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice
vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Thomas, Monsef, and President Corica -
3. Noes: Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Absent: None.
88-325a Resolution No. "Supporting Federal Bill HR 4286 concerning
Air Traffic and Noise at Oakland International Airport and their
effect on the City of Alameda." Held over.
Councilmember Thomas stated she would like to read the Bill.
Councilmember Camicia stated that basically it supports the City of
Alameda resolution but if Council wishes, the matter could be put
over and he will procure a copy for the next meeting.
It was agreed and Councilmember Camicia so moved, Councilmember
Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
88-326a Resolution No. 11473 "Adopting Plans and Specifications and
calling for bids for Telephone Conduit Installation on Shore Line
Drive, P.W. No. 5-88-8, and directing City Clerk to advertise
same." Adopted.
Councilmember Thomas made a motion to adopt the resolution.
Councilmember Haugner seconded and it was carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
88-327a Resolution No. 11474 "Amending Sections 2 and 3 of
Resolution No. 5472, establishing time of operation for parking
meters located on off-street lots." Adopted.
Diane B. Coler-Dark, 2857 Jackson Street, President of the Park
Street Business Association, commented that the Association is in
favor of increasing the hours, but does not want the revenues
[rates] doubled; noted there is no reserve in the fund for
expansion; understands every year $250,000 is committed to the
General Fund, and if there is an excess of close to $10,000 a month
in revenue, at least that amount should be earmarked for potential
expansion.
Ann Hulen, Executive Director of the Chamber of Commerce, 1314
Central Avenue, stated the Chamber members are very much in favor of
extending the hours, but their concerns are the double change: to
extend the hours and increase the meter rates; that perhaps the
rate increase could be done in increments.
Councilmember Thomas suggested perhaps raising the hours at this
time and raising the rates later.
The Public Works Director noted the increase is for on-street to try
to get long-term parkers into the lots with lower rates and free up
the meters in front of the businesses.
May 17, 1988
157
Councilmember Haugner noted the report stated the larger cities
received much more per hour but this City is more like San Leandro;
and favors extended hours now and waiting for the increase of rates.
The Public Works Director commented the extra money will go toward
helping improve off-street parking.
Councilmember Camicia moved to adopt the resolution to expand the
hours. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
88-328a Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending certain sections of Article 6, Chapter 3 of Title
XVII thereof relating to the hours of enforced operation and the
rates for on-street parking meters." Introduced.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to introduce the Ordinance.
Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion.
Councilmember Haugner stated she would vote against it because she
does not wish to vote for both increased rates and expanded hours to
go in affect at the same time.
The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Camicia, Monsef, Thomas and President Corica - 4.
Noes: Councilmember Haugner 1. Absent - None.
88-329a Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by amending Section 15-6210 thereof relating to rates for
collection of garbage and refuse and prescribing method of
collection." Introduced.
President Corica stated he would abstain as a relative works for the
Oakland Scavenger Company.
Councilmember Thomas made a motion to introduce the Ordinance.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner,
Monsef and Thomas - 4. Noes: None. Absent: None. Absentions:
President Corica - 1.
88-330a Ordinance No. • N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by adding Chapter 8 to Title XI thereof relating to water
conservation." Introduced.
Councilmember Haugner made a motion to introduce the Ordinance.
Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
88-331 Ordinance No. 2387, N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by adding Article 6 to Chapter 3 of Title II thereof
establishing the Housing Commission of the City of Alameda and
May 17, 1988
158
prescribing membership and duties of said Commission." Adopted.
Councilmember Camicia made a motion to adopt the Ordinance.
Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion which was carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner,
Thomas and President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember Monsef - 1.
Absent: None.
NEW BUSINESS
88-332 Councilmember Haugner requested staff reports on future
Councilmember reports.
88-333 Councilmember Haugner reminded Council that she would like
them to meet as a group and work on improving communication.
88-334 Councilmember Camicia expressed concern about the City's
legal position with Harbor Bay Isle (HBI); suggested staff begin
negotiations with HBI and report back to Council regarding the RV
storage site, and the school site versus shoreline park.
The City Attorney stated there are three issues related to lawsuits,
and he will give appropriate notice for a Closed Session at the next
meeting, adding that it would be appropriate for him to discuss a
settlement with HBI attorneys and report to Council in Closed
Session.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated he did not see what there
is to negotiate; the terms are either fulfilled or not.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL
88-335 Diane Coler-Dark, 2857 Jackson Street, commented on the CDBG
funding with regard to Park Street.
88-336 Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, commented that
enforcement of the sign ordinance is hurting some businesspersons.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
1
D1 E B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance in
accordance with the Brown Act.
May 17, 1998