Loading...
2002-04-02 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - APRIL 2, 2002 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (02 -141) Presentation of Certificates of Appreciation to Public Transit Committee Members. [Vice Mayor DeWitt and Councilmember Johnson] Vice Mayor DeWitt presented certificates and gift bags to Public Transit Committee Members: Alice Creason, Steven Gerstle, Golda Mason, Richard Neveln, and Lowell Schneider; and recognized PTC members not in attendance: Carol Ward Allen, Blake Brydon, Mike Corbett, Bob DeLuca, Dion Griffin, John Huetter, Judy Jacobs, Pattianne Parker, Eric Schatmeier, Jerry Sherman, Allan Shore and Amey Stone. (02 -142) Presentation by Sentinel Fair Housing on Fair Housing Education in Alameda. Adande Washington, Sentinel Fair Housing Board President, discussed fair housing programs and submitted her comments to the City Clerk. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *02 -143) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on March 19, 2002. Approved. ( *02 -144) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 April 2, 2002 authorize Call for Bids for Infiltration and Inflow Sanitary Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 8, No. P.W. 04- 01 -12. Accepted. ( *02 -145) Recommendation to waive Payment in Lieu of Taxes for Esperanza Complex for Fiscal Years 2002 -03 and 2003 -04. Accepted. ( *02 -146) Resolution No. 13441, "Authorizing Amendment to Contract for Open Market Purchase from Tiburon, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3- 15 of the Alameda City Charter for Purchase of Full Upgrade of RMS and CAD Software for the Police Department Computer Upgrade." Adopted; and ( *02 -146A) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment to June 5, 2001 Contract with Tiburon, Inc. Approved ( *02 -147) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Subsection 8 -8.4 (Official Vehicles Designated Areas) of Section 8 -8 (General Parking Regulations) of Chapter VIII (Traffic and Motor Vehicles), Relating to Parking Spaces on Central Avenue at the Historic Alameda High School. Introduced. ( *02 -148) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,409,392.72. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (02 -149) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter II (Administration), Chapter VIII (Traffic and Motor Vehicles), Chapter XI (Bicycles), Chapter XII (Designated Parking), and Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks), Eliminating the Transportation Advisory Committee and Creating a Transportation Commission and Technical Transportation Team. Introduced. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the Transportation Commission's (TC) three key roles are: 1) recommending transportation policies to Council; 2) monitoring implementation of transportation plans; and 3) serving as the appeals board for certain Transportation Technical Team (TTT) decisions; the Commission would consist of 9 appointed members, plus two ex- officio, non - voting members: one from AC Transit and one from BART; the TC would take over responsibilities of the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC); the ordinance dissolves TAC; non - routine, operational issues will be delegated to the TTT, which consists of City staff; the Planning Board reviewed the ordinance and suggested: 1) that the TC have discretion to perform its duties, 2) there be term limits, 3) TTT meetings be publicly noticed and 4) the 9 appointed members include no more than 2 non - residents; the cost of providing the TC is approximately $258,000 per year; costs can be accommodated using Measure B funds by reducing the City's Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 April 2, 2002 resurfacing program by approximately 200; staff recommends adoption of the ordinance. Councilmember Kerr stated that after the Public Transit Committee (PTC) worked for two years, AC Transit came out with a plan that destroyed any planning done by the PTC; having a member of AC Transit and BART does not guarantee that said agencies will pay attention to Alameda; the Commission should select a liaison to said agencies, similar to the Planning Board selecting members to connect and communicate with other agencies; inquired whether the two outside agency members and two non - resident business members would allow up to four members to be non - Alameda residents. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the AC Transit and BART Board members would not be voting members. Councilmember Kerr stated TAC reviews stop signs and transportation issues; the PTC was formed to address transit; the scope of the TC is being expanded to a general transportation committee; the TTT seems to be creating another level of bureaucracy and will fulfill TAC duties. The Deputy Public Works Director stated the TTT would be responsible for non - routine, operational issues, which were TAC functions; the TAC current duties include both non - operational technical issues and policy recommendations to Council; policy recommendations will be the responsibility of the TC. Councilmember Kerr inquired when TAC made policy recommendations, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded that TAC developed the permit parking program policy, which was presented to Council and approved four years ago. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is questioning why the TC cannot have support staff similar to every other board; e.g. zoning requests are handled by the Planning Director acting as the Zoning Director, with the Planning Board as the appeals body; questioned why there should be two boards meeting publicly, which will be costly; stated the proposal will cost over $1� Million per year; the City has many requests for street paving. The City Manager stated internal staff teams handle activities, which are operational in nature, in most cities; the recommendation is to make deliberations open to the public in an effort to provide increased access to City government. Councilmember Kerr noted that the TTT costs are $247,500 and TC costs are $258,500; the total cost of the plan is over $1� Million Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 April 2, 2002 per year. The City Manager stated staff time is required; internal committees are used to addresses a number of issues, e.g. Design Review Committee in Planning; costs are normal operational costs spent to support staff activities. Councilmember Kerr stated TAC did not have the scope the City needs; transportation should be an important part of the TC; however, two committees [TC and TTT] are not needed. Councilmember Daysog stated TAC has heard many requests for stop signs; in some instances, the decisions were appealed to the City Council; inquired whether decisions could be appealed to the City Council. The Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Charlie Betcher, Bus Riders Union, stated that he served on the Berkeley Transportation Commission; there are political advantages to taking transportation issues to the Commission level to be dealt with on an impartial basis; Councilmembers can refer issues to the TC. Steve Geller, Bus Riders Union, stated a transportation commission acts as a buffer between Council and citizens; suggested that the TC review shuttle buses in Alameda. Golda Mason, Alameda Transportation Coalition, stated a letter was submitted proposing revisions to the ordinance; outlined said revisions; stated the PTC did not discuss formation of a TTT; the PTC suggested that TAC be disbanded; the TC should have autonomy. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Transportation Coalition's main concern is that language regarding appeals should be broader, to which Ms. Mason responded in the affirmative. Julian Frederick, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated establishing a viable transportation commission is essential; since Alameda is an Island, people need to be able to come and go within the City and to and from the City; the TC should be worthy of its name. John White, Alameda, stated the TC should have the authority to research, develop and recommend transportation policies directly to Council. Richard Neveln, Alameda, inquired whether the Planning Board would review TC recommendations before transmittal to Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 2, 2002 The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the TC duties include development of transportation policy recommendations for Council approval. Mr. Neveln suggested that language be added to allow the Planning Board to review said policies to provide checks and balances; stated having AC Transit and BART representatives on the TC provides direct access and a clear communications path with said agencies on a regular basis and in a public venue. Councilmember Kerr noted that in the ordinance, Section 2 -8.1 requires the TC to review proposed plans and policies with the Planning Board. Jon Spangler, Bike Alameda, stated the TC's three responsibilities are: 1) developing policies for Council consideration; 2) overseeing Transit Plan implementation; and 3) making decisions regarding appeals; however, the proposed language does not give the TC discretionary authority over appeals; language should be added to give the TC authority, similar to the Planning Board, regarding appeals; the TC and TTT should have a high degree of interaction; the TC should also have interaction with the Planning Board and the Economic Development Commission. Vice Mayor DeWitt requested clarification on the appeal process. The City Attorney stated appeals are handled in two ways: 1) de novo appeals, which allow all evidence to be reviewed and decisions to be made independently; 2) as in the proposed ordinance, Section 2- 8.5(b) requires that TTT decisions stand, unless certain findings can be made; TTT decisions can only be overturned for a failure of due process or if there are new facts and evidence; as written, the TC will not hold a whole new hearing [de novo]. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the Transportation Coalition is requesting that appeals be de novo. The City Attorney stated in the case of de novo hearings, there are two separate and equal hearings; as proposed, the ordinance limits the scope of review to failure of due process or new facts or evidence. Councilmember Daysog noted that Planning Board decisions appealed to Council are de novo; stated the question which Council and the public should consider is whether language should be added indicating that the right of review, on a de novo basis, of TTT and TC decisions rests with the City Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 April 2, 2002 Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Councilmember Daysog is suggesting that the appeal to the TC would be a regular appeal, but the appeal to the City Council would be de novo, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated the right [to appeal to Council] exists, but is not included in the ordinance; a decision of the TC or TTT can be appealed to the City Council. The City Attorney stated the public does not have automatic right to appeal to the City Council; Councilmembers have the right to call for review any decision of any Board or Commission; the TC is advisory to the Council; the TC will develop policy recommendations for Council approval; therefore, everything will come to Council in a different path than an appeal; any policy decision made by the TC will come to Council; the TC does not have final decision - making authority and is only advisory. Audrey Lord - Hausman, Pedestrian Friendly Alameda, stated that her organization supports the formation of the Commission; the TC should be a body of integrity and substance. Michael Krueger, Alameda Transit Advocates, stated forming the TC will be a good thing for the City; the TC should have a de novo right of appeal over the TTT and should have the ability to initiate appeals; the [appeal] issue should be sorted out prior to adoption of the ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt noted that the City Council makes all final decisions. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether TC rulings on TTT appeals could be appealed to Council. The City Attorney stated as written, the TTT makes the primary decision, with a narrow right of appeal to the TC; appeals could be based upon City policies not being followed; if the ordinance is revised to allow the TC to have de novo hearings, the power of the TTT will be decreased and the TC' s power will be increased; the ordinance could return with the right to appeal to the Council expressly stated; that she would make said revisions when the matter returns to Council [for second reading]; the direction she needs is whether the appeal hearing before the TC would be de novo or whether the narrow based appeal should remain as written. Councilmember Daysog stated transit advocates are requesting appeals be heard on a de novo basis; requested examples when there Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 2, 2002 should be de novo hearings. Mr. Krueger responded the ability to hear an appeal would be limited strictly to technicalities, e.g., if process was followed or facts were not introduced; the TC should have the ability to question a decision of City staff as being counter to Alameda's Transit Policy. Vice Mayor DeWitt requested the City Manager to explain the operational duties involved with transportation. The City Manager stated the TTT is defined in Section 8 -1.1; staff attempted to distinguish between policies and programs, which fall under the TC and Council, and operational issues, which fall under the responsibility of the City Manager, and assigned responsibilities accordingly. The Deputy Public Works Director stated Section 2- 8.5(b) allows appeals based on process or policy; if there appears to be a misinterpretation of a policy, the decision can be appealed; the TTT is required to operate under the policies that have been recommended by the TC and adopted by Council. Councilmember Daysog stated the TC is vital; the City needs to get more people on public transit; the Posey tube has a capacity of 4001 cars; currently, the tube capacity is at 810, including projects which have been planned; the remaining capacity is 190; as development continues, the City needs to be mindful of impacts on egresses; a strong transportation commission is needed; that he supports stronger language; the TTT is needed to evaluate empirical transit decisions; there are standards for making decisions; e.g. standards for placing stop signs; even without a team, staff would make said decisions; said decisions should be made in public; that he is eager for the TC to work on bus stops and be involved with the General Plan update of the Transportation Element; the TC should obtain information from the public on how the City's circulation and traffic flow is planned. Councilmember Kerr inquired how the Council felt about the TC having 11 members; noted there is not room at the dais for 11 people; stated the Planning Board has 7 members. Mayor Appezzato stated ex- officio, non - voting members would not sit at the dais. Councilmember Kerr stated the City constantly receives letters about street paving; a TC is needed; however, the tiered structure seems inordinately complicated; the City's street paving will be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 2, 2002 reduced by 210. Mayor Appezzato requested staff to review costs; stated costs seem very high; that he would like to go forward; an expensive bureaucracy should not be built; thanked Vice Mayor DeWitt, Councilmember Johnson and other members for serving on the PTC; stated the TC's duty is to develop transportation policy recommendations for Council approval; the TTT will implement policies and does not have broad discretion; that he does not have a problem with changing language to de novo hearings; the ordinance can be amended in the future, if necessary. The City Attorney stated if the TC held de novo hearings, there would no longer be a distinction between the policy body [TC] and the operational body [TTT]; the TC would be allowed to make operational and factual decisions; the TTT makes operational decisions which can be appealed to the TC on certain grounds, such as not following Council policy; however, the TC does not perform operational duties; allowing appeals to be de novo causes operational duties to be within the jurisdiction of the TC. Councilmember Kerr noted de novo hearings are expensive. The City Manager stated de novo hearings would add to the length of time for solutions to be implemented, add to costs and may become very bureaucratic; Boards and Commissions appropriately address policies, programs and services; operational issues are distinguishable. Councilmember Daysog stated the objective is to get our arms around transit issues; suggested that Section 2- 8.5(b) be reviewed in a year and a half; if there are substantial concerns, the matter can be addressed; urged that Council move forward. Mayor Appezzato stated that he does not have a problem with revising the language to allow de novo hearings; however, the ordinance can be changed later. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Councilmember Johnson has reviewed the material and would probably support the ordinance as written; the ordinance should be adopted to review whether it works; then, issues could be addressed; recommended that the ordinance be adopted as presented. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved introduction of the ordinance. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion and requested that a report on the issue [appeals] be provided in one year. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 April 2, 2002 Under discussion, Vice Mayor DeWitt inquired whether there was a request for an additional non - voting member. Mayor Appezzato stated Amey Stone from the Peralta Community College District requested that there be up to three non - voting members to allow for a representative from the College of Alameda or East Bay Regional Park District. The Deputy Public Works Director stated two of the nine voting members can be non - residents; it is assumed that the AC Transit and BART board member would be non - residents; therefore, there could be two non - resident voting members and two non - resident [ex- officio] members representing AC Transit and BART. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether a representative from the College of Alameda or EBRPD could be accommodated, to which the Deputy Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote: Aye: Councilmember Daysog, DeWitt, and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.] (02 -150) Ordinance No. 2877, "Authorizing Amendment to Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Alameda." Finally passed. Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.1 (02 -151) Ordinance No. 2878, "Amending Ordinance No. 2871 by Extending Franchise Agreement with Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. for Solid Waste Collection and Disposal on a Month -to- Month Basis to no Later than February, 2003." Finally passed. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.] (02 -152) Ordinance No. 2879, "Approving and Authorizing the Sale of City Owned Property Located at 2834 Adams Street, Alameda, California, and Waiving the 30 -Day Delay in Effective Date Pursuant to Charter Section 3 -12." Finally passed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 April 2, 2002 Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.1 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (02 -153) Vice Mayor DeWitt encouraged everyone to vote at the April 9, 2002 Special Election [on formation of a Health Care District for Alameda Hospital]. (02 -154) Councilmember Kerr stated that she is concerned when an organization operating on public money appears to overturn City policy and advocate a political action to overturn City laws; although said action is the organization's right on its own time and money, she is concerned when it occurs on publicly- supported property or [Community Development] Block Grant money; she will retain her right to speak out if she believes it is occurring and to ask questions to determine whether said actions are occurring. ADJOURNMENT (02 -155) There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular meeting at 9:25 p.m. in memory of Andy Pagano. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 April 2, 2002