Loading...
2009-07-21 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -JULY 21, 2009- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m. Councilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (09 -287) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the­-257 Annual Art and Wine Faire. Rob McKean, Art and Wine Faire Chairman, presented glasses; stated approximately 100,000 people came to the Faire last year. Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated attendance at the Spring Faire increased from 40,000 to 50,000. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *09 -288) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 7, 2009. Approved. ( *09 -289) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,893,890.78. ( *09 -290) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for Bids for the Alameda Harbor Bay Channel Dredging Project, No. P.W. 06- 09 -14. Accepted. ( *09 -291) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specification and Authorize a Call for Bids for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2009/2010, Phase 10, No. P.W. 06- 09 -15. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 July 21, 2009 Accepted. ( *09 -292) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $287,420, Including Contingencies, to MDF Pipelines for the Central Avenue Sewer Rehabilitation, Pacific Avenue to Third Street, No. P.W. 05- 09 -13. Accepted. ( *09 -293) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $618,815, Including Contingencies, to Harty Pipelines for the Fernside Boulevard Sewer Rehabilitation, Thompson Avenue to High Street, No. P.W. 03- 09 -09. Accepted. ( *09 -294) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Marine Express, Inc., for the Main Street Ferry Terminal Barge Maintenance Project. Accepted. ( *09 -295) Resolution No. 14362, "Authorizing an Open Market Purchase Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Annual Fuel Delivery to Various Locations Within the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2009 -2010 and Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement." Adopted. ( *09 -296) Resolution No. 14363, "Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Enter into a Maintenance Agreement between the City of Alameda and the State of California Department of Transportation for the Maintenance of the Bicycle Path at the Foot of the North Side of the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge." Adopted. ( *09 -297) Resolution No. 14364, "Approving the Development Plan and the Time Schedule for the Sewer System Management Plan as Adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board." Adopted. ( *09 -298) Resolution No. 14365, "Approving Parcel Map No. 9787 (3211 -3215 Fernside Boulevard)." Adopted. ( *09 -299) Resolution No. 14366, "Authorizing the Destruction of Specified Unnecessary Records of the Human Resources Department." Adopted. ( *09 -300) Resolution No. 14367, "Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding Between the Alameda City Employees Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 2009 and Ending June 30, 2011." Adopted. ( *09 -301) Ordinance No. by Amending Subsection Funds) of Section 3 -28 and Taxation) to Reduce 2998, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code 3 -28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance the Golf Fund's Return on Investment from Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 July 21, 2009 to to 0.43363° for Fiscal Years 2006 -07 through 2009 -10 and Exempting the Golf Fund's Return on Investment Entirely, Effective Fiscal Year 2010 -11." Finally passed. ( *09 -302) Ordinance No. 2999, "Amending the Community Improvement Plans for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project and the West End Community Improvement Project to Make Technical Clarifying Changes." Finally passed. ( *09 -303) Public Hearing to Consider "Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 8015 the Alameda Towne Centre." Adopted. CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS Resolution No. 14368, (File No. PLN08 -0507) at (09 -304) FY 08 -09 Year End and FY 09 -10 Annual Budget - Remaining Challenges. The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation. Councilmember Gilmore stated the State will not get serious about fixing budget issues until City, County and Redevelopment Agency funds are depleted. Councilmember Matarrese stated school boards, councils, and special districts have had to raise taxes to survive; budgets cannot be prepared using previous year plus growth. The Interim City Manager stated every day will be a conscious budget day. In response to Councilmember Matarrese's request, the Interim City Manager stated at the beginning of the year, PERS advised the City that rates could increase by 20 to 60; now, PERS is saying that rates could increase by 6% to 120; the City will need approximately $5.5 to $6 million in Fiscal Years 2011 -2012 and 2012 -2013 to pay for past PERS' obligations. Mayor Johnson stated PERS modified some investment strategies and parameters; people need to understand that PERS takes no risk; PERS comes back to cities for more money when investments go bad. The Interim City Manager stated losses discussed earlier in the year were based on the [stock] market crash and did not include the real estate market; PERS has become a quasi- banking entity in California; cities will drop out of PERS in the future. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Development Services Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 July 21, 2009 Director stated redevelopment agency funding is guaranteed in the Constitution; cities have band together to sue the State over taking redevelopment funds; a lot of money in the Education Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) is not going to education but is being used to repay the triple flip in some counties; the State maintains that deciding how property taxes are dispersed is the State's purview; the Superior Court determined that the taking [of funds] was illegal; the City's first redevelopment project was the conversion of a shipyard to the Marina Village development; the State is trying to restructure redevelopment, take control of property taxes, and find a vehicle to redistribute funds back to the State. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how the City can anticipate redevelopment of the former Base. The Development Services Director responded the City no longer has Urban Development Action grants and economic development grants to provide massive infrastructure; stated all of the old, internal infrastructure needs to be cleaned and demolished to support development; State resources are no longer available; stated that she does not have an answer regarding redevelopment of the former Base. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the State Controller provided a chart weeks ago that anticipated an increase of 20 to 3% in the middle of 2010; now, all bets are off. The Interim City Manager stated the $23 billion [State deficit] that allegedly will be cut in half through borrowing does not factor in the future cost of State services; no one has mentioned what the PERS impact will be to the State; unemployment projections do not reflect the reality of government employee layoffs in late May and June; the State is not making decisions to cut services, and keeps pushing the responsibility down. Vice Mayor deHaan stated many municipalities are on the brink [of bankruptcy]. The Interim City Manager stated nothing has happened the way everyone thought it would back in January; the City is looking at a longer, shallower recovery; revenues and expenditures will need to be evaluated every quarter. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if governments start to default on PERS payments. The Interim City Manager responded the PERS Board provides a report Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 July 21, 2009 every ninety days; stated that she is not sure whether or not the City would receive a notice. Mayor Johnson stated the City should request a notice; some agencies will not be able to afford to make PERS payments. The Interim City Manager stated smaller cities will be revisiting whether being a city is affordable. Vice Mayor deHaan stated decisions made years ago are coming to light more quickly because of the state of the economy. Mayor Johnson stated cities have to be careful not to make commitments that cannot be changed. The Interim City Manager stated cash is the issue with the State right now; the State does not care whether cities sue on constitutional issues because the State will still have cities' money in the interim. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (09 -305) Public Hearing to Consider a Planning Board Recommendation to Abandon the Proposal to Establish New Zoning Provisions to Limit the Height and Size of Two -Story Residential Buildings for property located on the 3200 Block of San Jose Avenue, Adams Street, and Washington Street. The Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what are the recommendations for the existing vacant lots. The Planning Services Manager responded the recommended design review guidelines would be applicable to new, single family dwellings in addition to second story additions to existing homes; stated the proposed two -story home would need to comply with zoning regulations in the Municipal Code. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether existing guidelines would be used for the vacant lots. The Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated currently, the guidelines do not include ranch -style homes. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the issue arose because a new, proposed structure had some encroachments that impact the existing ranch - style homes. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 July 21, 2009 Mayor Johnson stated the issue arose because three years ago there was a proposal to add a second story with six bedrooms and six bathrooms to an existing home. In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry abut the status of the project, the Planning Services Manager responded an application has been submitted and staff advised the Applicant that the City is going through a process to adopt new zoning regulations that would limit the size and height of second -story buildings or design guidelines; the property owner has been holding off on the project in order for the City to go through the process. Mayor Johnson inquired how long the property owner has held off on the project, to which the Planning Services Manager responded two years. Mayor Johnson stated the process is not good. The Planning Services Manager stated the property owner has chosen to hold off on the project to ensure that the City's updated process is in place. Mayor Johnson stated the situation reminds her of the Fernside Boulevard house; the project took over two years to go through the Planning Department process, which is embarrassing. Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Planning Department was directed to review the matter in early 2007; anguish is being caused by addressing the matter two years later. Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing. Speakers: Charles Wolf, Alameda; Victor Quintel, Alameda; Dave McCarver, Alameda; Ann Quintel, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the hearing. Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff is proposing to exempt corners. The Planning Services Manager responded corner lots are required to follow R -1 zoning requirements. Mayor Johnson inquired whether R -1 zoning requirements are different from ranch -style overlay regulations. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 July 21, 2009 The Planning Services Manager responded ranch overlay regulations would be in addition to existing R -1 zoning requirements. Mayor Johnson inquired whether ranch overlay regulations would apply to corner lots, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Following Ms. Quintel's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board recommendation is to establish design review guidelines. The Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board thought the design review guidelines could be strengthened with respect to ranch -style architecture; stated the packet contains a draft of the guidelines. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether design review guidelines are binding. The Planning Services Manager responded staff follows design review guidelines and provides the guidelines to applicants; stated staff uses the guidelines to determine whether or not to approve a design review application; staff determines if a project is consistent with the design guidelines; the guidelines are linked to the zoning ordinance; staff encourages applicants to redesign projects if projects are not consistent with the guidelines; otherwise, staff denies the application, which can be appealed to the Planning Board. Mayor Johnson stated that she understands why the community has lost confidence in the Planning Department applying design review guidelines; the monster house at Pacific Avenue west of Webster Street is four times bigger than any other house in the area; it was too late to do anything by the time the matter came to Council; staff stated the project was not a demolition, but was a deconstruction and reconstruction since six structural pieces of wood were used inside the walls. Councilmember Gilmore inquired what is the height limit in an R -1 zone, to which the Planning Services Manager responded thirty feet. Councilmember Matarrese stated having mid - century and ranch -era guidelines would be helpful; the South Shore development has an entire neighborhood consisting of ranch -style homes; the overlay would be beneficial for properties located on the 3200 block of San Jose Avenue, Adams Street, and Washington Street. Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is sympathetic with property Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 July 21, 2009 owners in the area; not having requirements would be more attractive to a buyer because more could be done with the property; owners would be burdened with an overlay that is not required elsewhere; residents want design review guidelines tightened up but are not in favor of the overlay. Mr. McCarver stated that he does not want to burden neighbors with a strict overlay; the Planning Department was supposed to come forward with guidelines, meet with the neighborhood, and find the best way to make the situation work; that he does not feel there was a true consensus and is very disillusioned with the process. Councilmember Gilmore stated single -story homes could be sandwiched between two -story houses unless second -story homes are prohibited. Mr. McCarver stated the design review guidelines note that second - story additions within a predominately single -story neighborhood need to be sufficiently set back to maintain the characteristics of the neighborhood. Mayor Johnson stated the guidelines are very clear but were not followed for the house next door to Mr. McCarver. In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry regarding plans for a vacant lot, the Planning Services Manager stated the proposal went before the Planning Board and the Planning Board referred the matter back to the Applicant; currently, staff is working with the Applicant to revise the design. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how vacant lots would be developed. The Planning Services Manager responded separate overlay zoning regulations could be developed limiting a second -story floor area to 800 square feet, limiting the height to 20 feet, and requiring that the second story be constructed at the rear of the existing building; the proposal could be brought to the Planning Board for recommendations and to the City Council for final review and approval; the proposed zoning regulations would apply to interior lots as well corner lots. Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended the first community meeting; the general consensus was that residents understood what was presented and were receptive. The Planning Services Manager stated the majority of speakers at the second community meeting and Planning Board meeting were not in support of an overlay district. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 July 21, 2009 Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board's recommendation was to deny creating an overlay district, tighten up design review guidelines, and hire a consultant to work with staff on the matter. The Planning Services Manager responded a consultant has prepared the draft guidelines; stated staff would continue to work with the consultant to finalize the guidelines. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the guidelines would go back to the Planning Board for another public hearing once finalized, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative. Mayor Johnson stated the community needs a commitment that the guidelines will be applied in a rational manner; the guidelines have been misinterpreted in other cases; requiring Harbor Bay residents to put in windows without panes is another misapplication of design review guidelines; credibility needs to be established; design review guidelines are not rules. The Planning Services Manager stated staff looks at the guidelines as a very important set of tools to educate planners and applicants. Councilmember Matarrese stated guidelines are not rules, are not binding, and will be interpreted; the proposed overlay sets very clear boundaries; the question is whether Council wants to redesign projects or require residents to address the issue; that he is not sure whether having Council design projects on appeal is a good use of time; that he is looking for something to establish boundaries on how far people can go within the guidelines. Mayor Johnson stated design review guidelines should be put in place soon so that vacant lots would be subject to the guidelines; staff needs to determine what needs to be done to ensure that guidelines are not misapplied or ignored; staff cannot rely on individuals to appeal; an overlay would not require neighborhoods to be vigilant in ensuring guidelines are applied rationally. Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the difference between design review requirements and guidelines. The Planning Services Manager responded design review requirements make it necessary for someone to get architectural approval for design; stated the permit is discretionary; an appeal can be made to the Planning Board once a decision is made; design review guidelines assist staff in evaluating applications. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 July 21, 2009 The Assistant City Manager stated sometimes guidelines are over applied or under applied; design review has quite a bit of discretion. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether corner lots have to comply with the guidelines, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything can be done to accelerate finalizing the revised design review guidelines. The Assistant City Manager responded applications can be processed using the draft guidelines. Councilmember Matarrese stated requirements addressing the look of the neighborhood are needed in addition to R -1 zoning requirements. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether property owners would have to disclose that the neighborhood has an overlay district when houses are sold. The City Attorney responded real estate professionals disclose zoning requirements; suggested that Council give direction to tighten up the guidelines even if a zoning overlay is created; stated guidelines are not merely suggestions, but are regulations adopted and approved by the Planning Board or City Council; the guidelines do not have the same weight as an ordinance or resolution but work with City zoning ordinances. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the Planning Board recommendation to institute design guidelines and do whatever is needed to expedite the process. Vice Mayor deHaan stated strengthening the guidelines is important; the guidelines need to be followed. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with amendment to include that corner lots be subject to the guidelines, that the guidelines incorporate ranch -era additions, and that the guidelines are not restricted to the proposed overlay zone. Councilmember Gilmore agreed to amend the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Madison Street residents would be excluded, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded the guidelines would apply. The Planning Services Manager stated staff does not have Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 July 21, 2009 administrative instructions on how to use the guidelines; an administrative memo could be created to ensure consistent application of the guidelines. The Interim City Manager stated staff would come back and advise how the process will be addressed. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Tam - l.] Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the neighborhood would be protected moving forward. The Interim City Manager responded staff would establish internal checks and balances; stated staff would provide said information in October. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not sure whether the Applicant held back on the pending application or was told to hold back. The Assistant City Manager stated the Applicant's design proposals have not been up to snuff and have been sent back to the drawing board a couple of times. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how the project would be measured. The Assistant City Manager responded the project would be measured using the draft guidelines. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if an applicant used past cases for design review interpretations. The City Attorney responded the City just has to prove decisions are not arbitrary and capricious. Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if staff made the decision, to which the City Attorney responded the same standard would apply. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how challengeable are draft guidelines versus approved guidelines. The Planning Services Manager responded draft guidelines are more informational and help supplement the existing approved residential guidelines. Councilmember Matarrese inquired how an applicant's attorney would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 July 21, 2009 view the matter. The City Attorney suggested that the word "draft" be taken off the guidelines; stated guidelines approved by a legislative body become policy. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (09 -306) Floyd Hunter, Alameda, submitted a letter; suggested open space on the Beltline property be called the Jean Sweeney Park. Councilmember Matarrese stated several years ago, the lot at the end of Maitland Drive was sold and approximately $1 million was put into the Open Space fund; inquired whether the money would be used to buy the [ Beltline] property, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether future use of the property is being investigated, to which the Interim City Manager responded the matter would be considered once the City receives the deed. (09 -307) James Leach, Alameda, stated several soft story retrofit designs he has done have not cost much; stated the list of soft story structures should be made public. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the list is public information. The Assistant City Manager responded property owners are able to argue whether or not buildings are soft story for a short period of time; stated information becomes public once the time runs out. Mayor Johnson inquired how much time is allotted for appealing whether or not a building is soft story, to which the Assistant City Manager responded that he would need to check. COUNCIL REFERRALS None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (09 -308) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to the Youth Advisory Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Hannah Bowman, Joran Flores, Valerian Lee, Anjuli Sastry, Bhaani Singh and Angela Sterling Vick. (09 -309) Mayor Johnson nominated Lorre Zuppan for appointment to the Planning Board. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 July 21, 2009 (09 -310) Councilmember Matarrese stated the block of Clement Avenue between Oak Street and Walnut Avenue has abandoned vehicles with trailers attached; the abandoned property at Oak Street and Clement Avenue going west is full of graffiti. Mayor Johnson inquired how the Police Department monitors abandoned vehicles. The Interim City Manager stated an update would be provided under City Manager Communications at a future meeting. Vice Mayor deHaan stated some vehicles have been tagged but not towed; one tagged recreational vehicle has been around for three years and is just moved. (09 -311) Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether any direction has been given regarding not watering certain areas of Leydecker Park. The Recreation and Park Director responded water has been concentrated on athletic fields due to the 30% water reduction imposed by the East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) ; the reduction was changed to 150 on July l; perimeter areas would begin being watered. Vice Mayor deHaan stated some areas probably have been left in a state of disrepair. The Recreation and Park Director stated hopefully, the areas will come back. Mayor Johnson stated the long -term issue is to put in bay friendly landscaping. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:59 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 13 July 21, 2009