2004-07-20 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 20, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04 -359) Presentation by Rails -to- Trails.
Melanie Mintz, Rails -to- Trails Conservancy, submitted a handout and
gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the next steps would be.
Ms. Mintz responded the steps would be: 1) completing the
feasibility study, 2) seeking funding to complete a master plan, 3)
adopting a resolution in favor of the trail, 4) implementing a
phasing plan, 5) negotiating with the railroad, 6) convening a City
task force comprised of staff and advocates, and 7) investigating
trail extensions.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the plan provides further incentive
to review the width of the right -of -way behind the red brick
building and solutions for the Kaufman and Broad project; the map
indicates the trail would go through the Alameda Marina property;
the boat yard portion may have some safety problems.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the feasibility study would be
completed prior to the master plan, to which Ms. Mintz responded
the feasibility study would review street cross sections, widths,
and ownership issues; the master plan could be the next step; a
master plan could be done for segments.
Mayor Johnson requested that Council receive a follow -up report on
a future agenda.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the report address whether the
trail would be considered a transit corridor; stated the Payden
trail should be considered.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
July 20, 2004
The City Manager stated that the trails would be a component of a
Master Transportation Plan.
Ms. Mintz stated Council feedback would be appreciated.
(04 -360) Presentation of $65,036 Incentives Award by Alameda County
Waste Management Authority for the City's estimated diversion over
the first year of the Single Family Residential Food Waste and
Contaminated Paper Collection Program.
Mayor Johnson accepted a check from Brian Mathews, Alameda County
Waste Management Authority.
(04 -361) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on
the Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR), introduced and
thanked Tracy and Robb McKean and City staff for their involvement
with the Faire; stated that money from the event promotes Alameda;
handled out Alameda Power & Telecom sponsored wine glasses.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the July 6, 2004 Regular Council
Meeting Minutes [paragraph no. 04 -363]; the recommendation to
reject the bid for the Webster Street Renaissance Project
[paragraph no.04 -366], and the recommendation to approve and adopt
the Operating Budget [paragraph no.04 -367] were removed from the
consent calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
consent calendar.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *04 -362) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 10,
2004 and June 15, 2004; the Special Joint City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting and Special City Council
Meeting of July 1, 2004; the Special City Council Meeting, the
Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting, and the Special City Council Meeting of July 6,
2004; and the Special City Council Meeting of July 7, 2004.
Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
July 20, 2004
(04 -363) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 6,
2004.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the minutes with a correction
to page 3; she voted no on Resolution No. 13741.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *04 -364) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the Period Ending June 30, 2004 for sales transactions in the
first calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.
( *04 -365) Recommendation to accept the work of SIMCO Construction,
Inc. for the Alameda Fire Station No. 3 facade repair and apparatus
upgrade, No. P.W. 08- 03 -17. Accepted.
(04 -366) Recommendation to reject the Bid; authorize a second Call
for Bids, and adopt modified Plans and Specifications for the
Webster Street Renaissance Project, No. P.W. 07- 02 -07.
The Supervising Civil Engineer provided a brief presentation
outlining the bid process.
Mayor Johnson inquired who is responsible for the project, to which
the City Manager responded that the project is a City project.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the project cost estimates were so low,
to which the Supervising Civil Engineer responded that the estimate
were done before May; there have been price increases; the bid
received is non - competitive.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated subcontractors advised the
main contractor that there was going to be only one bidder,
resulting in bid alterations due to lack of competition.
Mayor Johnson stated that certain costs were twice the engineer's
estimate; inquired whether the specifications or time of the year
resulted in receiving one bid and whether staff could have
projected some of the issues.
The Supervising Civil Engineer responded that staff was waiting for
the relinquishment agreement with CalTrans before initiating the
bid process; the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) wanted to
go forward with the project as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be enough money for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
July 20, 2004
project, to which the City Manager responded that the grant was
submitted two years ago; the market has changed; proceeding with
improvements may require securing additional funding.
Mayor Johnson stated circumstances should have been anticipated.
The Public Works Director stated the bid was a premium bid;
including inflation for concrete and steel costs, the bidder was
still high; recommended re- bidding the project; WABA was requested
to postpone advertising the project; stated staff was pressured to
meet WABA' s needs and get the project done as soon as possible;
starting the project in September puts construction during the
rainy season; WABA continues to request the project move forward.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the project is urgent; the 65% cost
differential should have been brought to Council.
The Public Works Director stated Council could authorize the City
Manager to negotiate with the contractor and reduce the scope of
work.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that staff should realize a
discrepancy at a trigger point.
The City Manager inquired whether a 65% increase in concrete or
steel could be estimated, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative; estimates were reasonable; the
contractor was informed that no one else was bidding.
The Supervising Civil Engineer concurred; stated that contractors
have concerns about increased fuel costs.
Mayor Johnson stated that the project is important and needs to
proceed.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the project could be phased out
to avoid Christmas shopping disruptions, to which the City Manager
responded that provisions are made within the construction
schedules to accommodate the needs of the business community.
Mayor Johnson requested a copy of the budget and construction
schedule.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he did not want to see the
project in phases, which could result in not completing the
project; the 65% discrepancy should be revisited.
Councilmember Gilmore stated starting work in the rainy season
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
July 20, 2004
would take longer and increase costs; inquired whether the bid
could stipulate construction should start after the rainy season.
The City Manager responded that contractors would not bid and hold
back on construction; re- bidding could be postponed until after the
rainy season.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of Council proceeding with the
action [approval of the staff recommendation] and approval to have
the matter return to Council to address the pros and cons of the
issues raised, such as phasing and the rainy season.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Sherri Stieg, WABA, requested Council do whatever possible to
ensure that the project moves forward; stated WABA reviewed the
bid; construction items were not high; fixed items, such as
furniture, doubled in cost; other bidders have indicated they would
bid now; there is an expanded bidder's list; the Park Street
Streetscape project is proposed for January; questioned the
feasibility of City staff managing two projects at two ends of town
simultaneously.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Public Works would manage the Park
Street Streetscape Project, to which the Public Works Director
responded there is a consultant; staff has not determined which
department would oversee the Park Street projects, including the
Library, parking structure and the streetscape project.
Ms. Stieg stated although construction during the rainy season is
not optimum, the merchants want the project to move forward; a
committee is working on ways to mitigate construction issues; urged
Council to move forward with the project.
Mayor Johnson stated the motion is to adopt the staff
recommendation; inquired when staff could return with a briefing.
The City Manager stated staff would provide information as soon as
possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a reason not to go out to
bid.
The Public Works Director responded Council could authorize going
out for bid; if Council provides different direction when the
matter returns, the bid could be cancelled or extended; there are
options.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
July 20, 2004
Mayor Johnson stated the briefing should address the schedule and
budget.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the additional direction in the motion is
just a request for information.
Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the motion is to reject the
current bid, authorize re -bid and ask staff to return with a
synopsis of other options.
Vice Mayor Daysog and Councilmember Matarrese concurred with the
clarified motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(04 -367) Resolution No. 13746, "Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Capital Improvements for Fiscal Years 2004 -06,
and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in
Fiscal Year 2004 -05, minus $1.1 million in Alameda Unified School
District funding, but including funding for crossing guards."
Adopted;
(04 -367A) Resolution No. 13747, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Development Review Activities to
Increase Cost Recovery." Adopted; and
(04 -367B) Resolution No. 13748, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 to add a Community Planning Fee Equal to 0.30 of the Project
Valuation to All Permit Activities Processed by Permit Center."
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report noting the starting
figures in order to communicate with the public and review the
budget in six months.
The City Manager stated that the Finance Director is compiling the
information and a report would be provided to Council.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council was clear on minimizing
service impacts; the report back to Council should outline how the
cuts will impact service; inquired whether the budget reflected
that the City Clerk and City Attorney offices were not included in
the loo cuts.
The City Manager stated information was provided in the summarized
document provided at the last budget workshop; another copy of the
document would be provided.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
July 20, 2004
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how the school budget [$1.1 million in
funding] was being treated and whether a separate motion would be
needed regarding police overtime at school dances for example.
The City Manager responded the document provided to Council
outlined approximately $1 million from multiple funds; the Police
Chief would meet with the School Superintendent and revisit
school activity costs; there is no need to take additional action;
Council direction was to continue having the largest share of
support to the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) come from the
Police Department.
Councilmember Kerr stated at the budget work session, Council did
not vote on the $1 million support to AUSD.
The City Manager concurred with Councilmember Kerr; stated a number
of funds support AUSD; the General Fund provides the bulk of the
funding for law enforcement support.
Councilmember Kerr stated that she specifically requested that the
motion at the work session not include the $1 million to support
AUSD items.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that authorization to spend money for the
District could be questioned; the AUSD issue should be brought
back.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could do so procedurally.
The City Manager responded that Council could adopt the budget and
bring the AUSD support issue back as a separate item.
Councilmember Kerr requested that there be two motions; stated that
she does not support funding school items, with the exception of
crossing guards.
Mayor Johnson stated Council would not vote on the school issue
tonight.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the budget presented
includes support for AUSD, to which the City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council requested part -time Park
Supervisors be funded through the end of the year.
The City Manager stated Council requested an Equipment Operator and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
July 20, 2004
full - funding supervisors at all ten parks through the end of the
Fiscal Year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether reserves were being drawn
down for the Park's program only.
The Finance Director responded that reserves were being drawn in
order to preserve: 1) three police officers, 2) two dispatchers, 3)
a telephone operator 4) nine firefighters and 5) Park and
Recreation staffing; in the first year, there would be a $1.6
million draw down, and in the second year, a $790,000 draw down.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the part -time park positions are
covered by special park funds, to which the Finance Director
responded the General Fund covers the positions.
The City Manager stated the five current park sites would be
covered until the end of the summer; $160,000 would cover ten park
sites through the end of the Fiscal Year.
Mayor Johnson requested a report on whether the $160,000 covers
weekends and after school hours in the winter.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the public safety fee was
included, to which the Finance Director responded that the
appropriations are dependent upon the revenue.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the CalPERS Fresh Start was
included in order to generate $1 million for Fiscal Year 2004 -05
and $800,000 for Fiscal Year 2005 -06, to which the Finance Director
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there would be a $1 million
CalPERS payment in Fiscal Year 2007 -08, to which the Finance
Director responded the total cash flow savings over 20 years is $3
million; savings over the first five years is a little less than $1
million; restructuring starts in 2005.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how much the anticipated $1 million in
savings would cost over time, to which the Finance Director
responded that the City would pay $3.7 million greater than
otherwise would have been paid at the end of the 20 years, which
would be 2023 -2024.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there would be a savings in
2007 -08, to which the Finance Director responded there is a savings
until the year 2009 -10.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
July 20, 2004
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired into the difference in 2009 -10, to which
the Finance Director responded $42,000 above the previous payback
amount.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could prepay, to which the
Finance Director responded the opportunity has been missed for the
current year; PERS offers different options each year.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City could advocate for a different
type of program with PERS and develop an individual repayment plan.
The Finance Director stated repayment plans depend on the earnings
ratio.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a separate vote on the reserve issue;
stated the City should review more cuts before using reserves.
Councilmember Matarrese stated additional cuts should have been
addressed weeks ago; using reserves for park staff was clear; that
he would not support having a separate vote on reserves.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he raised issues on ways of
generating additional revenues such as a one -day furlough.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the question is what level
of reserves should be kept in the General Fund as a structural
matter or whether the question is drawing down $1.6 million and
$800,000.
Vice Mayor Daysog responded that reducing the dollars being taken
from the reserves needs to be address in the form of cuts; there
have been discussions on what other cities are doing to save money.
Mayor Johnson stated that the furlough issue could be reviewed;
there are contract issues involved.
Councilmember Kerr stated that there is a great incompatibility
between adding back three sworn police officers, nine firefighters,
telephone operator and park attendants and reducing the amount
taken from reserves.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Kerr; stated that
Council made choices and gave direction to draw down on reserves.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the costs for preserving the three
sworn police officer and adding the nine firefighters come from the
public safety fee; there is still need for more cuts elsewhere;
once the reserve policy is adopted, there is no incentive for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
July 20, 2004
bargaining groups to give up anything.
The City Manager stated that over the last seven years, reserves
have increased from $9 to $19 million; there would be modest
withdrawals over the next two years.
Mayor Johnson stated that there can be continual review; further
adjustments could be made.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council could set a future policy
limiting reserve withdrawals.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the public access fee covers the
increased expenses in public safety, to which the Finance Director
responded that the fee is intended to cover approximately 500 of
dispatch services.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that savings would need to be found if
Police and Fire staff are expanded.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Council wanted to minimize service
impacts; the decision was to drawn down on reserves.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the suggested one -day furlough would
pay for additional police services.
Mayor Johnson stated the furlough cannot be implemented without
negotiating with bargaining units; inquired what the savings would
be for a one -day furlough.
The Finance Director responded approximately $170,000; public
safety cannot be furloughed.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated public safety could be requested to
participate in the one -day furlough.
Mayor Johnson stated budget adoption could not depend upon the
potential success of negotiations with bargaining units.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is incentive to pursue
the furlough issue; direction has been given to the City Manager;
Council is not increasing police and fire; Council decided not to
cut three sworn police officers, not to have residents reach an
answering machine when calling the police department and not to
eliminate a fire truck; balancing the budget can only be
accomplished through drawing down on reserves; Council did not want
to go below certain service levels.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
July 20, 2004
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the budget minus the
items that comprise the list of $1.1 million of City services that
somehow affect Alameda Unified School District.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would
accept a friendly amendment to the motion to include approving the
crossing guards in the General Fund, but leaving out all other
funding in support of the School District.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Kerr was proposing to
include approving payment for crossing guards in the budget, to
which Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the crossing guards could be
included even though there was no vote at the work session, to
which the City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred to amend his motion to have the
AUSD allocation not authorized, with the exception of authorizing
allocation for the school crossing guards.
Councilmember Kerr clarified the crossing guards would be approved
as part of the budget tonight.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion.
Vice Mayor Daysog made a substitute motion to vote on the reserve
separate from the budget adoption.
Mayor Johnson stated the budget could not be adopted without
including drawing down on the reserves; it is a package deal.
The SUBSTITUTE MOTION FAILED due to lack of second.
On the call for the question, the original motion carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of resolutions amending the
Master Fee resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *04 -368) Resolution No. 13749, "Ordering Vacation of an Existing
Pubic Utility Easement (Alameda County Recorder Series No.
#2003654531 November 3, 2003) within Lot 9, Parcel Map No. 4744 and
Recordation of Quitclaim Deed (First Marina Village, LLC)."
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
July 20, 2004
Adopted.
( *04 -369) Resolution No.
Utilities Board to Select
Authorities." Adopted.
13750, "Delegating Authority to the Public
the Appointee to the Utility Joint Powers
( *04 -370) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,493,338.05.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04 -371) Recommendation to nominate Oakland Chinatown Advisory
Committee Representatives.
Mayor Johnson nominated Sherri Stieg and a Planning Board
representative as the representatives, and a Planning Board
representative as the alternate; requested appointments be brought
back on August 3 City Council consent calendar.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether other parties have nominated
representatives, to which Mayor Johnson responded that Oakland
understands that Alameda is not appointing Councilmembers and will
not do so.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board would
return to Council recommendations for approval, to which Mayor
Johnson responded that Council would nominate someone from the
Planning Board and the Planning Board would recommend someone as
the alternate.
The City Attorney inquired whether Mayor Johnson was delegating the
authority to appoint the specific person to the Planning Board, to
which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
(04 -372) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of Variance, VO4 -0004
and Design Review, DR04 -0007 at 903 Delmar Avenue to construct a
230 square -foot, single -story addition to the rear of the
residence. The height of the proposed addition would measure
approximately thirteen feet five inches (13'5 ") from grade. A
Variance is required to allow the addition to encroach
approximately fourteen feet (14') into the required rear yard
setback of fifteen feet five inches (15'5 "). A Major Design Review
approval is also requested for the exterior changes to the
residence. The project is located within the R -1, One- Family
Residence Zoning District. Appellant: Ronald Curtis. Applicant:
Ronald and Myrna Put; and
(04 -372A) Resolution No. 13749, "Upholding the Planning Board's
Approval of Variance VO4 -0004 and Major Design Review Dr04 -0007 to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
July 20, 2004
Allow a 230 Square Foot Addition at 903 Delmar Avenue." Adopted.
Councilmember Kerr stated there is question regarding the legality
of existing structures extending into the estuary; there is not a
neat, straight line; that she has concerns with approving any
construction until a legal line is determined.
The Public Works Director stated staff met with the Applicant and
the issue has been resolved.
In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry about other properties,
the Public Works Director stated that a procedure has been
developed for residents to obtain a use or building permit; the
City would investigate; if an encroachment exists, an encroachment
permit would be recorded to give the City absolute discretion over
having the property owner remove the encroachment whenever the City
deems it appropriate.
Councilmember Kerr stated the irregular shoreline is not all
comprised of structures; there are mounds of dirt; the shoreline is
difficult to understand.
The Public Works Director stated that Public Works has the same
concern and decided to handle on the matter on a case -by -case
basis.
Councilmember Kerr stated that presently there is an argument
between two property owners about blocking light; inquired how
Council could decide whether to allow construction before knowing
which buildings are encroachments.
The Public Works Director stated buildings are not encroaching into
the lagoon on the project; the encroachment is a small piece of
land.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponent (In favor of appeal)
Ron Curtis, Appellant.
onents (Not in favor of appeal)
Ronald Put, Applicant, and Angie Klein, Architect for Applicant.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
July 20, 2004
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the proposed addition would be
within four and a half feet of the waterline, to which the Project
Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether 902 Regent Street is within
four feet of the sea wall, to which the Project Planner responded
that the structure is oriented so that the side yard abuts the sea
wall; the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) standard requirements for a
single -story building would be a five -foot setback.
Mr. Curtis stated that the setback is approximately 11.5 feet from
the inside edge of the sea wall.
Mr. Put stated alternatives were reviewed during the design phase;
building the addition on the side adjacent to the Appellant would
have a view impact; a low -level addition on the other side was
suggested; when he bought the house ten years ago, he planted a
lawn along the sea wall.
Councilmember Kerr inquired who added the fill, to which Mr. Put
responded the fill was in place when he bought the house in 1993.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the property owners are required to
get a permit for docks, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry, the Public Works
Director stated the fill is now legalized with the encroachment
permit that has been recorded.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board reviewed the plans
twice and vote unanimously in favor of the addition.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to address the basis for the
appeal.
The Project Planner stated the appeal addressed three items: 1)
addition blocking light on to 901 Del Mar Avenue, 2) door being
less than 40 feet from 902 Regent Street causing noise impacts, and
3) the stucco wall funneling sound to 902 Regent Street.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the door is within the
setback requirement for the property, to which the Project Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the front door at 902 Regent
Street was on the eastern side of the building, to which the
Project Planner responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
July 20, 2004
The Supervising Planner stated that the location of the front door
does not indicate where the front yard is located; the front yard
and side yard setbacks are defined in a different way; a lot is
defined as having the side, rear and front in a certain pattern
immaterial to the development of the lot; a side yard is always the
narrower side of the lot.
Councilmember Kerr stated Mr. Curtis indicated that the front door
faces west, which is the front of the house; the distance between
the south side and sea wall is being defined as a backyard.
The Supervising Planner stated the AMC would define Mr. Curtis's
front yard as the area to the west, adjacent to Regent Street; the
eastern side is the rear yard; the side facing the lagoon and the
side facing 904 Regent Street are side yards.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Council is addressing the
back yard of the house on Regent Street and the side yard of the
street on Delmar Avenue, to which the Supervising Planner responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board discussed the matter at
length.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the point regarding blocking light
to 901 Delmar Avenue does not have merit; exposure is south - facing;
there will be light; the building addition is low; the point about
the door being less than 40 feet from the house on Regent Street
does not have merit because it is within the setbacks required for
side yards; the relevant issue is noise; inquired whether staff
analyzed noise issues.
The Project Planner responded staff determined that the addition
would enclose an open patio area, which would mitigate noise
impacts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the lots are unusual and present
unusual circumstances; the Planning Board carefully reviewed the
addition; enclosing exterior activities would reduce noise.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution denying
the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
July 20, 2004
Councilmember Kerr stated that she voted no because approval
represents the lowest common denominator type of planning; the City
should not increase crowding because it has been done elsewhere in
the neighborhood; ambiance of neighborhoods should be increased,
not reduced.
(04 -373) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding Section 30 -17, (Residential Density Bonuses and
Incentives) to Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Not
introduced.
Mayor Johnson inquired the status of the Housing Element, to which
the City Manager responded staff is still in the negotiation
process.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance should be continued until there
is progress.
Councilmember Kerr stated if Mayor Johnson made a motion, she would
support it.
Mayor Johnson moved approval of continuing the matter until
progress is made on Housing Element certification.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated the City should not
advance the State's philosophy; the City has made concessions;
nothing the City does seems to appease the State; until there is
indication that the Housing Element will be approved, the ordinance
should not proceed.
The City Manager stated the Planning and Building Director is in
dialogue with the State.
Mayor Johnson noted there might be a change in the density bonus
legislation.
The City Manager inquired whether the Council would prefer to link
the ordinance to the State certifying the Housing Element.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated staff would bring back the ordinance at the
appropriate time, rather than continuing it to a particular date.
Councilmember Gilmore stated staff provided a memo on second -unit
legislation going through the legislature; the State is trying to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
July 20, 2004
tell cities how to zone properties.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(04 -374) Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's decision
regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central
Avenue. (Continued to August 3, 2004)
The Public Works Director requested the matter be continued to the
next Council meeting in order to notify the Appellant.
(04 -375) Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry
Service. (Continued to August 3, 2004)
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the recommendation is to continue
the current surcharge; inquired whether there would be an increase.
The Ferry Services Manager responded a fuel charge is not in place
currently; last October, Council approved a $0.25 one -way fare
increase; a new fuel surcharge is being proposed; if approved, the
surcharge would be in place until December 6.
Mayor Johnson inquired the amount of the surcharge, to which the
Ferry Services Manager responded $0.25 one way.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there would be an increase in
fare, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The Ferry Services Manager stated the Agreement with Blue and Gold
is a cost plus fixed -fee arrangement; the City pays fuel costs;
with Harbor Bay Maritime, there is a clause in the Contract that
requires the City to address any extraordinary expense increases
beyond the operator's control; traditionally, the City has stepped
forward when fuel costs have reached historic highs and permitted
the implementation of a fuel surcharge to cover the loss.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City purchases diesel in
bulk, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded in the
negative; stated the City received a grant for a fuel facility at
Alameda Point, however, there were insurance and planning issues.
Mayor Johnson suggested staff review having fuel deliveries in
conjunction with the MARAD fleet or AC Transit; stated that in
spite of increased fuel costs, she does not wish to continue
raising rates.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
July 20, 2004
Councilmember Kerr stated staff should investigate the commercial
contractor that delivers to MARAD; there are two large diesel tanks
at Alameda Point which were used by the Navy; the question is where
the vessels could fill up; buying in bulk is less expensive.
The Ferry Services Manager stated Blue and Gold purchases diesel in
bulk and has an underground tank at Pier 39; Blue and Gold can get
fuel $0.18 to $0.20 less than Harbor Bay Maritime, which is fueled
by truck.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ferry riders received notice.
The Ferry Services Manager responded riders were notified; in
addition, notice would be given for a week prior to implementing
the increase.
Mayor Johnson inquired when riders were notified, to which the
Ferry Services Manager responded riders were notified yesterday.
Councilmember Kerr stated more than one day notice should be
provided.
Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be continued to the next meeting
to allow for notification.
Councilmember Kerr stated riders did not receive adequate notice to
attend the meeting.
The City Manager stated the matter would be continued to August 3
and staff would provide notice to riders.
(04 -376) Resolution No. 13752, "Calling a Consolidated Special
Municipal Election in the City of Alameda on November 2, 2004 for
the Purpose of Submitting to the Electors a Proposal to Amend the
City of Alameda Charter by Deleting References to the Board of
Education; and Proposing Said Charter Amendment." Adopted.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether elimination of Section 2 -7(D)
concerning vacancies would mean the City would be adopting the
alternative provided in California State Government Code Section
36512 (d) .
The City Attorney stated the directive was to completely remove the
Board of Education; the staff report provide 4 options regarding
Section 2 -7(D); staff is seeking direction; the section could be
repealed, could remain or an alternate method could be proposed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
July 20, 2004
Councilmember Kerr stated staff report Alternative 3 includes
creation of a board of three: Auditor, Treasurer and President of
the Board of Library Trustees; inquired whether said people would
choose who would fill the vacancies or whether they would be the
individuals filling the vacancies.
The City Clerk responded the three officers would be serving to
select the Councilmembers.
Councilmember Kerr stated having a majority of Councilmembers
appointed gives her a great sense of unease; Councilmembers should
be elected; should there be a majority of Council vacancies, a
special election should be held as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Kerr.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Kerr's
suggestion was similar to staff report Alternative 4.
Councilmember Kerr responded Alternative 4 would be the State -based
alternative, which uses the next regularly established election
date; an election should be held within 60 days.
Mayor Johnson stated a Council would have to be appointed in the
interim until a special election is held.
Councilmember Kerr suggested staff report Alternative 3 be modified
to appoint up to three people to have enough to form a quorum; if
one Councilmember remained, two people would be appointed; if two
Councilmembers remained, one person would be appointed.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that the Auditor and Treasurer,
who are both elected officials, serve until an election could be
held.
The City Attorney inquired in which order the appointments should
be made, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded Auditor and
Treasurer.
Mayor Johnson stated the language could be: "the Auditor and
Treasurer and not more than two appointed Councilmembers."
The City Attorney stated the language could be: "in no event shall
a majority of the Councilmembers be appointed."
Mayor Johnson stated if there were a vacancy of all five
Councilmembers, three people would be needed [to form a quorum].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
July 20, 2004
Councilmember Kerr stated the Auditor and Treasurer could select a
third member.
Mayor Johnson suggested the President of the Planning Board be the
third person.
The City Attorney provided scenarios; stated language would be
added about calling a special election.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a special election could be called
in 60 days.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated an election
held within 60 days would have to be conducted via mail ballot.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how long it would take to set up a
normal election, to which the City Clerk responded 88 days.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the resolution, with the
addition [of language in Section 2 -7(D)] of appointing enough
replacements to form a quorum in the order of Auditor, Treasurer
and President of the Planning Board, to serve until a special
election could be held within 90 days.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the Charter specified certain
people serve as Disaster Council in the event of an emergency.
The City Attorney responded the issue is not addressed in the
Charter; there is a disaster preparedness ordinance; the group does
not act as the legislative body.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the presiding officer would have to be
selected; suggested the highest vote getter between the Auditor and
Treasurer be selected.
Mayor Johnson stated if a Councilmember remains, the Councilmember
should fill the presiding officer seat first.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the City Attorney stated other matters must be
addressed, such as designating Councilmembers to write a ballot
argument.
Mayor Johnson stated the School Board members should handle the
argument.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the School Board members
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 0
July 20, 2004
could draft the argument.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the Council
needs to decide whether any Councilmembers would sign the argument.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would sign the argument; since the
District requested the Charter Amendment, School Board members
should also sign.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would also sign the argument.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the argument authors could check
with other Councilmembers if additional signatures are needed.
The City Clerk responded the argument deadline is August 3; Council
should designate a third person to sign if needed.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether other Councilmembers could sign
the rebuttal.
The City Attorney stated a rebuttal argument would only be needed
if an argument against the measure were submitted.
Councilmember Kerr amended her motion to include designation of
ballot argument authors as discussed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the third person needed to be
designated.
The City Attorney responded either designate the person or a method
for selecting the person.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would be the third person to
sign the argument, if needed.
Councilmember Kerr stated that [designating Mayor Johnson, Vice
Mayor Daysog, and, if needed, Councilmember Matarrese to sign the
argument] was added to her motion.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with amending the motion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated there is a cost of $6,800; questioned
whether the bill should be split with the School District.
Mayor Johnson stated the cost should be split because the request
was made by the School District.
The City Attorney stated the motion could be made subject to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
July 20, 2004
School District's concurrence to pay $3,400.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Council would agree to
address payment separate from the ballot measure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Kerr would like the
ballot measure to move forward regardless of payment, to which
Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated requesting payment could be added to the
motion, rather than making the motion subject to payment.
Councilmembers Kerr and Gilmore agreed to amend the motion
accordingly.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(04 -377) Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Forty -Five Day
Moratorium on the Issuance of Zoning or Use Permits for the
Establishment of Work /Live Studios Under Alameda Municipal Code
Section 30 -15. Not passed.
Ed Murphy, Alameda, stated that he would like to know to whom the
45 -day moratorium would apply and to whom it would not apply.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the work /live ordinance is on the
books; people requesting changes to the ordinance are either too
late or the Courts should decide the issue.
Councilmember Kerr moved passage of the urgency ordinance.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested the question raised be addressed.
The City Attorney stated the proposed ordinance does not apply to
the previously approved 7 -unit work /live project on Blanding
Avenue, but would apply to any other project in the City.
Mayor Johnson seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Kerr and Mayor Johnson - 2. Noes:
Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore and Matarrese - 3.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the work /live ordinance could still be
clarified; that he is not sure whether work /live projects in the
pipeline would be approved within the next 45 days.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
July 20, 2004
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a particular project could be
exempted.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the existing
ordinance would apply; the Council has the legislative ability to
amend the ordinance; spot zoning or talking about a particular
project, is not permissible; even a moratorium has to apply across
the board; Council can review, amend or repeal the ordinance
anytime.
Councilmember Kerr stated that without the moratorium, a lot of
applications could be submitted for buildings outside the initial
intent of the ordinance; old shacks in the current geographical
zone might be converted, which is the reason the moratorium is a
good idea.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she agrees with Councilmember
Kerr; the Planning Board or Planning staff should be directed to
review the issues, which were also outlined in the staff report;
during discussions of the only work /live project, there was
testimony about difficultly in complying with the ordinance; there
are many hoops and it takes a long time; there have not been a rush
of applications in all the years the ordinance has been in place;
issues can be reviewed without imposing a moratorium.
Councilmember Kerr stated project approval might initiate
additional applications.
Mayor Johnson inquired how burdensome applications are, to which
the City Attorney responded an application starts the process;
there are some costs and specific requirements.
The Development Review Manager responded the process is not
lengthy; once an application is filed, it is processed similar to
any other application; the development community has told staff the
ordinance is very restrictive compared to other communities.
Mayor Johnson inquired at what point in the application process
there is a vested interest.
The City Attorney stated a legal memorandum could be provided on
when an applicant has a vested right to proceed; it is a gray area;
the time and money spent to submit an application does not
constitute a vested right; a vested right to proceed does not exist
for any work /live projects.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the ordinance has only been
exercised once; projects must meet all codes, go through the staff
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 3
July 20, 2004
planning process, and be approved by
the design and ensuring there are no
are enough restrictions; any project
should be worthy; the ordinance is
moratorium is not needed; if needed,
amending the ordinance.
the Planning Board, including
aazards on the property; there
making it through the process
specific about locations; a
Council should take action on
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is an application for the
Collins property, to which the Development Review Manager responded
that there are no applications on file, other than the Del Monte
building.
Mayor Johnson inquired the status of the Collins property.
The Development Review Manager responded staff met with different
developers about work /live proposals on the Collins property; the
proposal was to take existing buildings and locate square footage
in other areas, which is a different type of application; an
application has not been filed.
Councilmember Kerr stated a considerable amount of money has been
spent once an application is filed; the City could be sued once
applicants start spending money on the project.
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of addressing the remaining
agenda items past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5
(04 -378) Ordinance No. 2927, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsections 2 -8.2 (Membership; Term of Office; Removal)
and 2 -8.3 (Qualifications; Quorum; Voting) of Section 2 -8
(Transportation) of Chapter II (Administration) to Reduce the Size
of the Transportation Commission from Nine to Seven Members; Allow
for Staggered Terms and to Reduce the Size of the Quorum from Five
to Four Members." Finally passed.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to explain how terms would be
staggered.
The Public Works Director responded of the seven members, two would
expire one year, two would expire the next year, and three would
expire the following year, which is consistent with other
Commissions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 24
July 20, 2004
Vice Mayor Daysog suggested that the first sentence [of Section 2-
8 . 2 ] , which reads: "...nominated by the Mayor and approved by the
Council..." should read: "appointed by the Council" instead.
The City Attorney stated staff could make said change.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Council for appointing him to the
Commission; stated that although his term is over, he wants to
serve another term if it is the Council's pleasure.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance with the
language change.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(04 -379) Ordinance No. 2928, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 21 -1 (Definitions) of Article I (Definitions)
and Subsection 21 -20.4 (Charges for Service) of Section 21 -20
(Franchise Agreements) of Article III (Franchise Agreements); and
Adding a New Subsection 21 -2.7 (Integrated Waste Collection
Required) to Section 21 -2 (Collection and Removal) of Article II
(General Regulations) of Chapter XXI (Solid Waste and Recycling)."
Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 5. Noes: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1.
(04 -380) Ordinance No. 2929, "Approving Master Plan Amendment
MPA04 -0002 to the Catellus Master Plan and Catellus Site -Wide
Landscape Development Plan to Allow for a Stormwater Treatment and
Detention Pond, Pump Station and Force Main Along the Western Edge
of the Proposed Business Park and a Stormwater Outfall into the
Estuary at the Former FISC Site, North of Tinker Avenue, Tract 7179
for the Bayport Housing Development." Finally passed.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
None.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 5
July 20, 2004
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04 -381) Written communication from the League of California
Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's
Annual Conference.
Mayor Johnson moved approval of nominating Councilmember Kerr.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(04 -382) Councilmember Kerr stated a committee was formed to write
proposed changes to the development code; inquired when revisions
would be brought to Council.
(04 -383) Vice Mayor Daysog stated staff signed off on work done at
a resident's home; resident subsequently found that the work was
not up to code, resulting in spending approximately $8,000 more;
resident feels City was negligent and requests that the $8,000 be
reimbursed.
(04 -384) Vice Mayor Daysog stated that a business is concerned
about the procedure for delinquent business license renewal
notices; business was late in paying renewal and had to pay a $600
penalty fee; requested staff to review the procedure.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:09 a.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 2 6
July 20, 2004