Loading...
2001-11-06 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - NOVEMBER 6, 2001 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Kerr led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (01 -568) Announcement of the 50th Anniversary of the First Transcontinental Customer - Dialed Direct Call between Alameda, California and Englewood, New Jersey on November 10, 1951. [Mayor Appezzato] Jason Bezis, U.C. Berkeley law student, outlined his research on the historic telephone call. Mayor Appezzato noted former Mayor Chuck Corica spoke to the Mayor of Englewood on the 25th Anniversary of the first transcontinental customer - dialed direct telephone call; displayed the telephone used for said call; announced that he recently spoke to the Mayor of Englewood. (01 -569) Proclamation declaring November 6, 2001 as Alameda Junior Golf Club Day. Mayor Appezzato read the Proclamation and presented it to Norma Arnerich. Norma Arnerich gave a slide show on Junior Golf activities. Lil Arnerich, former Councilmember, stated it is important to have positive youth activities. (01 -570) Presentation by the Development Services Director and Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) Marketing Manager regarding the Energy -Based Marketing Campaign. The Development Services Director and AP &T Marketing Manager gave a Power Point presentation on the energy -based marketing campaign. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 November 6, 2001 CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced that the recommendation to reject Bid for the Express II Ferry Vessel Conversion Project [paragraph no. 572], the award of Contract for Phase I Architectural Services for Main Library [paragraph no. 577], the Resolution Acknowledging East Bay Municipal Utility District for [paragraph no. 578], the Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code Subsection 8 -7.9 [paragraph no. 580] and the Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance of Certain Contingent Interests in Alameda Beltline Railroad Easements [paragraph no. 581] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.1 [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *01 -571) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on October 15, 2001 and the Regular City Council Meeting held on October 16, 2001. Approved. (01 -572) Recommendation to reject Bid for the Express II Ferry Vessel Conversion Project, No. P.W. 08 -01 -22 and authorize Open Market Negotiations. Councilmember Kerr noted staff is working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) to reallocate bridge toll funds; inquired whether funds would be taken from other capital ferry projects [for Express II ferry vessel conversion]. The Deputy Public Works Director responded other capital projects include: 1) a terminal shelter at the East End Ferry on Harbor Bay; 2) refurbishment upgrades for the Encinal, including re- propulsioning and re- engining; and 3) electronic ticketing. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether other capital projects can afford to be delayed. The Deputy Public Works Director responded staff is requesting MTC to review [delaying] the electronic ticketing and the terminal shelter projects; staff is not requesting funds for the Encinal refurbishment to be reprogrammed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 November 6, 2001 Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.1 ( *01 -573) Recommendation to approve Contract Amendment, resulting in a total contract amount of $143,500 to Hilton, Frankopf & Hobson, LLC, for Technical Assistance in Development and Review of Performance Based Solid Waste /Recycling /Disposal Franchise Agreement. Accepted. ( *01 -574) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for Second Quarter of 2001. Accepted. ( *01 -575) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for Period Ending September 30, 2001. Accepted. ( *01 -576) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for Period Ending September 30, 2001. Accepted. (01 -577) Recommendation to award Contract for Phase I Architectural Services for Main Library to Thomas Hacker and Associates. Terri Brohard, Library Board and Library Building Team, stated members of the Library Building Team conducted the process to solicit, evaluate and interview architects for the main library project; introduced Library Building Team members; stated the architect selection process began by inviting 80 firms across the country to submit Statements of Qualification in June, 2001; 17 firms responded, of which eight firms were selected to submit Requests For Proposals; four firms were selected for final interviews; the Library Building Team and Library Board recommend the selection of Thomas Hacker and Associates; Thomas Hacker and Associates is experienced in the public input process; urged Council to move approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Johnson stated this [architect selection] is an important step in moving forward with the construction of the new library. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.1 (01 -578) Resolution No. 13409, "Acknowledging East Bay Municipal Utility District for 50 Years of Providing Wastewater Services." Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 November 6, 2001 Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.] Mayor Appezzato read the Resolution and presented it to Doug Linney, Alameda's elected representative on the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EDMUD) Board. Mr. Linney stated voters created a Special District to address 30 major sewers releasing untreated sewage directly into the San Francisco Bay in 1944; operations began in 1951; secondary treatment facilities were added in the 1970's; EBMUD continually upgrades it facilities and works to protect the Bay. ( *01 -579) Resolution No. 13410, "Providing for Additional Temporary Fully Paid Military Leave of Absence and Continuation of Benefits for City Employees Called to Active Duty with the Armed Forces." Adopted. (01 -580) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 8 -7.9 (Heavy Commercial Vehicles) of the Chapter VII (Traffic and Motor Vehicles) to Restrict Parking of Heavy Commercial Vehicles Along Frontage of City Parks. Introduced. Councilmember Daysog stated there is a huge concentration of trucks at Woodstock School along Atlantic Avenue; requested staff to review the matter. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kerr stated currently, parking is restricted in residential areas during the daytime, but allowed near parks; many trucks were parking around Littlejohn Park; people wishing to use the park could not find parking. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding records in the City Engineer's office detailing the limits of prohibitions, the Public Works Director stated limits will be established when each individual park is reviewed; typically, limits will be the intersections of the park. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Littlejohn Park limits would be Sherman Street to Benton Avenue, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 November 6, 2001 Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato stated phone calls have been made regarding big trucks parking in other areas of the City, e.g. Central Avenue; the matter should be monitored; the City should not be used for overnight [truck] parking; requested staff to review whether the ordinance should be expanded to include other areas of the City. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.1 (01 -581) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing Conveyance by Quitclaim Deed of Certain Contingent Interests in Alameda Beltline Railroad Easements to KB Homes. Introduced. Michael Krueger, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated planning should try to preserve street right -of -way for future transit expansion; the rail right -of -way was not on the street and could have served as a corridor for light rail; another corridor should be designated. Peter Lenhardt, Alameda, stated the City should not give up any right -of -way which could be used for transit to private interests; getting back a right -of -way is always more difficult; there should be an alternative right -of -way. The Planning Director stated the right -of -way was considered as part of the KB Homes subdivision; the Beltline has easements for railway purposes; the City is involved because it initiated action to take over the railway; title companies ensure anyone with a claim extinguishes interest; the City does not have an easement currently; the KB subdivision includes a multi -modal transportation corridor along Clement Avenue to provide for alternative transportation. Councilmember Kerr inquired how many easements are being considered. The Planning Director responded there are two [easements]; both belong to the Beltline; one is a floating easement. Councilmember Kerr inquired how much the City would receive for the Quitclaim Deed. The Planning Director responded $1.00; the City could only use the easement for conducting a railway; the Beltline is also relinquishing the property for basically no cost. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 6, 2001 5 Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Quitclaim is to Encinal Real Estate. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated portions of the property are being transferred from Encinal Real Estate to KB Homes. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Encinal Real Estate could sell the easement to KB Homes for an exorbitant amount, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative; stated the purchase and sale agreements are already in place. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City could get more than $1.00 for the Quitclaim Deed. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the City was following normal procedure. The Assistant City Attorney responded the Quitclaim does not indicate the City has ownership or interest in the property; without warranting the condition of title, a Quitclaim gives the entity whatever interest the City has, which could be no interest or a valuable interest; $1.00 is not an unreasonable amount. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City's interest is contingent, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the City's interest is only contingent. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City's contingent interest in a railway easement is not of value. The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a contingent interest might or might not ripen; even if it does ripen, the City can only use it [easement] to operate a railroad. The City Manager stated the City does not have anything to sell; therefore, the nominal amount of $1.00 is appropriate. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Encinal Real Estate will pay the City $1.00 and whether the amount which Encinal Real Estate will charge KB Homes has been set. The Assistant City Attorney responded Encinal Real Estate will pay the City $1.00; Encinal Real Estate would not possess any greater interest than the City; if the City does not find the interest worth more than $1.00, Encinal Real Estate would have a difficult time convincing anyone the interest is worth more. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 November 6, 2001 Councilmember Johnson suggested KB Homes be added to the Quitclaim Deed to ensure there is no problem with the transaction between Encinal Real Estate and KB Homes. The Planning Director stated all of the property KB Homes is proceeding to develop has been purchased from Encinal Real Estate; the sales contract requires that the property be delivered free and clear; in response to concerns about Encinal Real Estate charging an additional price, Encinal Real Estate is perfecting what it has contracted to deliver. Councilmember Johnson stated staff should ensure there is not going to be a problem with the transaction between Encinal Real Estate and KB Homes; the Quitclaim might be acceptable as presented. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City knows the contract amount between KB Homes and Encinal Real Estate for the portion the City is Quitclaiming. The Planning Director responded there is not a separate contract; the action must be completed as part of the contract which covers the overall purchase. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is anything to legally preclude Encinal Real Estate from charging above $1.00, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded that he matter would be covered in the real estate contract between Encinal Real Estate and KB Homes. Councilmember Kerr stated sale of the Chipman Warehouse property has not gone through; KB Homes does not have any real estate interest in half of the right -of -way; the right -of -way is being given to Encinal Real Estate; Encinal Real Estate plans to develop the Chipman Warehouse site. Councilmember Daysog stated the transaction with Encinal Real Estate and KB Homes leverages the 20% set aside and the increased amount of developer fees for the schools; the City should move forward. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, the City Manager stated Councilmember Johnson's comments [directing staff to ensure that there is not a problem with the transaction between Encinal Real Estate and KB Homes] Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 November 6, 2001 would be incorporated into the motion; and the City Attorney's Office would follow through. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.] ( *01 -582) Ratified Bills in the amount of $2,225,654.51. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (01 -583) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda's Long -Range Transit Plan. Mayor Appezzato thanked Vice Mayor DeWitt and Councilmember Johnson for serving on the Public Transit Committee. Councilmember Johnson recognized the Public Transit Committee members and the Deputy Public Works Director. Pamela Nishiyama, Clement Avenue Neighborhood Association, stated that she opposes any electric rail system going down Clement Avenue. K.C. Rosenberg, Clement Avenue Neighborhood Association, stated the 2500 block of Clement Avenue is 75% residential; the Long -Range Transit Plan was not revised to delete the rail; if the Long -Range Plan is adopted, the rail could be approved on Clement Avenue; her bedroom is 10 feet from where there could be a rail running 24- hours a day; the proposal indicated the rail would be quiet, which does not seem possible 10 feet from her bedroom; urged the Council not to move forward until the Clement Avenue matter was addressed; stated neighbors spoke at many meetings and recommend that the rail be detoured to Blanding Avenue, which is solely commercial; that she was not given notice about the meeting tonight; urged Council to revise the language to exclude [light rail on] the 2500 block of Clement Avenue. Steven Gerstle, Public Transit Committee (PTC), urged Council to move forward with the Plan with a sense of urgency; stated the transportation situation in the Bay Area and Alameda will not get better without hard work; the Plan has phases; urged Council to move forward with Phase 1, which includes increasing bus service on the line 50 to every 15 minutes; stated AC Transit would like the City to bring transit stops up to standard and include bus shelters; the City needs to show its concern for transit by funding programs for better bus stops and shelters; the City is in competition with other cities for AC Transit's services. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 November 6, 2001 Golda Mason, PTC and Alameda Transit Advocates, urged Council to accept the proposal and begin implementation of Phase 1 as soon as possible. Councilmember Johnson noted the Mayor will present certificates to members of the PTC at a future Council meeting. Richard Neveln, PTC, stated the Plan is a work in progress; express and commuter buses to San Francisco should be reviewed; 600 of bus riders travel south; line 50 was improved and weekend service was reestablished; shelters need to be improved to make people want to use bus transit, rather than cars; the City should expand its influence with AC Transit and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. John Huetter, PTC and West Alameda Business Association, urged Council and staff to implement the Plan; stated transportation agencies, other governmental entities and funding agencies should be aware of the Plan, which can be integrated into regional planning. Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, stated Long -Range Transit Plan is key to the continued economic vitality of Alameda; the Transportation Commission should have authority to oversee implementation of the Plan; AC Transit provided considerable input and asked Alameda to bring bus stops up to standards; aggressive implementation of the less - expensive, available technology, e.g. electric buses, will improve transit's attractiveness in Alameda without disrupting neighborhood; long -range capital improvements, e.g. light rail, are far off and require research; without a change in Measure A [1973], transit oriented developments, which could take advantage of the Transit Plan, will be impossible in Alameda; the City should review revising Measure A for new development for at least Alameda Point. Michael Krueger, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated light rail alignment was included in the Transit Plan for purpose of a study; adopting the Transit Plan does not mean tracks will be laid down Clement Avenue; another possible alignment was down Lincoln Avenue; light rail can be done in a way conducive to neighborhoods; e.g. Portland uses lighter, quieter vehicles; the basics, such as bus stops and schedules, need to be fixed now. Neil Garcia - Sinclair, CyberTran, stated the Transit Plan is not an implementation plan for a specific light rail project; CyberTran reviewed Clement Avenue; light rail could be moved over to Blanding Avenue to avoid the residential community on Clement Avenue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 November 6, 2001 Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed light rail. Greg Schiffer, AC Transit, stated AC Transit supports all the recommendations which the PTC presented to Council and looks forward to implementation. Councilmember Johnson stated the language in the Transit Plan is broad enough to address concerns regarding light rail; other alignments could be considered. Councilmember Johnson moved acceptance of the Long Range Transit Plan as presented. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr inquired whether anything in the Plan recommends eliminating Measure A [1973]. Councilmember Johnson responded Measure A was never part of the PTC's discussion; nothing in the Long Range Transit Plan has to do with Measure A. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the Plan does not make a recommendation suggesting any changes to Measure A; the Plan does refer to certain modes of transit which require a higher level of land use than others; however, the Plan does not suggest adopting of said modes; the Plan indicates the mode must match what is approved in the General Plan. Councilmember Johnson stated nothing in the Transit Plan specifically addresses Measure A. Councilmember Kerr stated there is a recommendation to extend the main bus line, currently the 51, to Bayfair Mall; Bayfair Mall has a BART station; Alameda buses go to BART; inquired the rationale for extending the bus route to San Leandro; stated the 51 bus line is burdened by delays and heavy traffic in other areas, e.g. Berkeley Marina and Oakland; inquired whether sending the bus to San Leandro will cause delays or whether it was suggested to increase service. Councilmember Johnson stated the issue of bus routing is highly technical; routes are inter - related. The Deputy Public Works Director stated origin destination studies indicated there was a large employment draw from Alameda to said area [San Leandro]; line 6, currently line 12, is scheduled to be extended to Fruitvale BART station; congestion was addressed; revision is recommended for the most congested area in Berkeley; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 November 6, 2001 the route will be taken off of College Avenue and moved to Shattuck Avenue to reduce congestion; if delays and congestion remain issues, there are alternate suggestions, e.g. truncating roads to have overlap at Oakland BART station. Councilmember Johnson stated there will be an on -going liaison committee between the City and AC Transit; bus route and service issues always come up; the Transportation Commission and liaison committee can address said issues. Councilmember Kerr stated the bus line from Broadway to Telegraph Avenue has been rerouted, which means the bus will no longer stop at Kaiser Hospital; inquired whether the route could be revised to travel to West MacArthur and then over to Telegraph Avenue; stated the City could have up to 20,000 people switch to Kaiser; the Transit Committee did not have said information; inquired whether the possibility could be included. Mayor Appezzato noted staff could work with AC Transit to review the matter. Councilmember Johnson stated the PTC tried to ensure nothing in the Plan is set in stone forever; there will always be changing circumstances; on -going adjustments will need to be made; further stated that after the Transportation Commission is established, there should be period reports to Council to address issues. Councilmember Kerr stated the Plan recommends that the City investigate additional transit -only cross - estuary capacity, specifically tubes, bus barges or ferry; other transit capacity should be added; e.g., an aerial tram is being studied; further stated the Plan discussed moving the existing Alameda /Oakland Ferry to the other side of the former Naval Air Station; however, said move would lengthen commuters travel time to San Francisco; if a ferry can be supported after Alameda Point is developed, a ferry could be added from the Sea Plane Lagoon to San Francisco; current use of the narrow water way to serve Alameda and Oakland is an efficient way to run the ferry; a letter from AC Transit cites a queue - jumper; requested an explanation of a queue - jumper. AC Transit Representative Greg Schiffer stated a queue - jumper occurs at traffic signals and allows buses to go around a queue, which is a line of cars backed up against the traffic signal; by providing a lane, e.g. right -turn lane, buses can get around traffic congestion. Councilmember Kerr stated that she supports the enthusiasm for improving bus shelters. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 November 6, 2001 Councilmember Johnson stated the PTC recommends that the bus shelter issue move forward as soon as possible; AC Transit has a possible program, or the City could independently establish a program, to fund bus shelters. Councilmember Daysog stated that he depends upon public transit; the Plan is an important first step; it is time to implement the Plan. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.1 (01 -584) Recommendation to transition the Public Transit Committee by: 1) appointing two Councilmembers to AC Transit Board Subcommittee; 2) endorsing communication with all citizens and community advisory groups; 3) endorsing the formation of a Transportation Commission and directing the City Manager, in conjunction with the City Attorney, to develop ordinances identifying the Commission's duties and dissolving the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC); 4) directing formation of an internal Transportation Technical Team to carry out duties of the TAC not ascribed to the Transportation Commission; and 5) authorizing an additional 0.5 Senior Typist Clerk position to Public Works and appropriating $58,500 using Measure B monies to fund the position. Accepted. Golda Mason, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated two Councilmembers should be appointed to AC Transit's subcommittee; to allow input, citizens advisory groups should be informed of different projects; the Transportation Commission should be formed similar to the Public Transit Committee (PTC) and should be run by the citizens, rather than staff; the Commission should be composed of citizens interested in the subject [transportation]. Councilmember Johnson noted the Transportation Commission will be composed of citizens. Frank Matarrese, Alameda, stated the formation of a Transportation Commission invests the City in the [Long -Range Transit] Plan; transportation and transit issues will be of increasing concern as development at Alameda Point is completed; the Economic Development Strategic Plan recommended such a commission be formed. Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, stated the Transportation Commission should have comprehensive responsibility for: 1) transportation policy issues; 2) implementation of all transportation plans, including the Bike Plan, Long -Range Transit Plan, and future plans Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 November 6, 2001 which could be adopted, e.g. a Pedestrian Plan; 3) operational aspects of transportation management; 4) hearing appeals of staff decisions on stop signs, red zones, and bus stops; a majority of the Commission's members should regularly use one or more modes of alternative transportation; Bike Alameda proposes mode -based representation; members should represent cycling, transit, pedestrian, and automotive transportation modes; there should also be representatives from Alameda's business community, schools, seniors, disabled and at- large. Julian Frederick, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated the public demanded transportation improvement several years back; Council acted swiftly; the Public Transit Committee did great work; the Transportation Commission's members should have first -hand knowledge of what is at stake; the Transportation Commission will be instrumental in making the Transit Plan alive and workable. Peter Lenhardt, Alameda, encouraged a modal -based format for selecting Transportation Commission representatives to ensure citizens' faith in the Commission's decisions and to ensure the Commission's responsibilities will be carried out in a manner which is representative of the citizenry. Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda, stated there is a recommendation to endorse implementation of communications with citizens and community advisory groups; web and e -mail technology should be used to get more citizens involved; citizens could sign up for topics of interest, e.g. transportation or housing issues; as issues are on various agendas, people could be notified via e -mail; said action would broaden government outreach. Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed bus services. Councilmember Johnson stated specific membership of the Transportation Commission and communication with community advisory groups were addressed by the Public Transit Committee (PTC); all ideas were given serious consideration; the PTC decided that the City should not give preference to particular community groups; further stated items can be appealed from the Transportation Technical Team to the Transportation Commission; after the Commission and Technical Team are operating, the matter of appeals can be reviewed and adjustments can be made, if necessary; the PTC separated out staff issues and placed policy issues with the Transportation Commission. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Vice Mayor DeWitt concurs with the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 November 6, 2001 recommendation. Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated the PTC vote was unanimous; the PTC is anxious to see two years of work move forward. Mayor Appezzato stated the matter can be brought back if changes are needed; City Boards and Commissions members are mostly at- large; some Boards have one member with specific expertise. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board requested to review the specific formation of the Transportation Commission. The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated prior to adoption of an Ordinance creating the Transportation Commission, the Planning Board would like to review the matter and provide feedback. Councilmember Johnson noted that she did not object to said request. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated that she endorses the general concept of at -large membership; requested the Information Technology (IT) Department to review how the City communicates with different residents; stated self - government is a do- it- yourself process which is worth the time and effort; possibly the IT Department can come up with a way to communicate with residents on specific issues; however, Planning Board and City Council agendas are on -line currently; inquired whether other Board and Commission agendas are on -line. The Assistant City Manager, Operations responded that he would provide said information. Councilmember Daysog stated the members of the Transportation Commission will work closely with members of community advisory groups; there are opportunities to institutionalize the relationship between community advisory groups and the Transportation Commission; the Commission's membership should be diverse to bring new ideas; details must be implemented; the Transportation Commission will be judged by whether it increases the number of people using public transit. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.1 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 November 6, 2001 (01 -585) Final Passage of Ordinance No. 2865, "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R -2 (Two- Family Residence) Zoning District to R -2 (PD) (Two- Family Residence /Planned Development Combining) Zoning District, for that Property Located at 3203, 3205 and 3207 Fernside Boulevard." Finally passed. Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (01 -586) James Haas, Alameda, stated the residents of Sandalwood Isle sent a letter to the Council regarding street conditions; last weekend, AP &T laid the cable for the new telecommunications system; the narrow trench collapsed; Public Works had to fill two areas and install metal plates to protect the street; the street was not constructed properly; there are less than two inches of asphalt over loose sand; the street has many cracks and huge pot holes, and has been patched many times; the center is depressed and manholes are sticking up; patching does not make sense; the street has not been resurfaced for forty years. Mayor Appezzato stated that he visited the street; he was going to raise the issue tonight; the petition was forwarded to the City Manager; he also spoke with AP &T; he requested City staff and AP &T to review conditions and respond to neighbors; AP &T has visited the site. The City Manager stated Councilmember Daysog requested a report on street conditions; staff has prepared the report and will forward it to Council; after Council receives the report, staff can follow up with a presentation. Mayor Appezzato stated the report should include how the City goes about resurfacing, including the plan and budget. Councilmember Daysog stated more and more residents are concerned about the quality of streets; that he requested the report to ensure resurfacing is approached on a systematic basis. Councilmember Johnson stated there should be a public presentation after the report is finalized; there are more complaints from residents about street issues; a presentation would educate the public. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 November 6, 2001 Mayor Appezzato stated it is important to ensure the citizens understand the plan for dealing with neighborhoods street -by- street. The City Manager stated there are 131 miles of streets in the 12.3 square mile City; the cost to reconstruct one mile is approximately $1 Million. Mayor Appezzato noted if the voters had not passed Measure B Reauthorization last year, the City would not have funds for [resurfacing] streets. (01 -587) Philip Garcia, Encinal High School Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corp. (JROTC), stated JROTC cares about the futures of its cadets; JROTC informs students about college requirements and scholarships; provided examples of successful JROTC graduates; urged Council to support the JROTC program [which is facing Alameda Unified School District funding cuts]. Mayor Appezzato stated that he personally supports the ROTC program; if the ballot measure passes today, the School District might reconsider [cuts]. (01 -588) Tali Benz, Encinal High School Junior Reserve Officer's Training Corp., requested Council's support for saving the JROTC program; stated Dr. Nashino and the School Board decided to cut one of the army instructors from the Encinal High School Program; JROTC has been a part of the community since 1923; after 78 years of service, the School Board should not eliminate the program; outlined JROTC cadets volunteer activities; stated JROTC prepares its participants for life beyond the classroom and encourages participants to attend college; if Measure A passes, the JROTC program will still be threatened due to budgetary constraints; the JROTC program was considered for elimination in 1993 and cadets requested that the City Council write a letter to the School Board urging the Board to reconsider cutting an Army instructor from the ROTC program; that she is requesting the same tonight. (01 -589) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed transit issues. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (01 -590) Councilmember Kerr stated the Request for Business Proposals (RFBP) designated boundaries which corresponded to Navy planning areas, e.g. Al and A2; the General Plan Amendment for Alameda Point has a different map and the Housing Element map boundaries differs from said map; reading the latest draft of the Housing Element, one cannot determine how it corresponds to the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 November 6, 2001 planning areas which were used in the RFBP and where extra housing will go; also, the Housing Element list of available land areas does not correspond to the maps; e.g., area 29 at Alameda Point is listed as the civic core, however, the map indicates the area is east of the sea plane lagoon, rather than north of the sea plane lagoon; suggested staff review making planning boundaries the same in all three documents. (01 -591) Councilmember Kerr noted the absentee ballot returns for Measure A indicated it was passing. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:28 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 November 6, 2001