Loading...
1998-01-20 Special and Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY- -JANUARY 20, 1998- -7:00 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special City Council meeting at 7:10 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas, and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-24) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing _Litigation, Name of Case: Creative Artist Network Inc. d.b.a. Cool World Productions v. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and City of Alameda; and (98-25) Conference with Labor Negotiator, Agency Negotiator: Personnel Director and Austris Rungis, Employee Organization(s): Alameda Police Officers Association - APOA, United Public Employees Association #790 (Police Technicians) - SEIU. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, no action was taken. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JANUARY 20, 1998 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:40 p.m. Councilmember Kerr led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr Lucas, and Mayor Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced that certain items were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Daysog moved the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*98-26) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 6, 1998. Approved. [Councilmember Lucas abstained; she was not present at the January 6, 1998 Council Meeting.] (*98-27) Recommendation to authorize a Lease-Purchase Agreement with WilTel Communications Group for Telephone System at Alameda Point. Accepted. (98-28) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute a Three-Year Contract in the amount of $215,316 to E-Z-Go Textron, Inc. for the lease of One Hundred Electric Golf Carts. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated government should not be in the golf business. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of staff recommendation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, the City Manager explained the golf complex generates a positive cash flow for the City's General Fund; those funds are applied for general services across the board. The Golf Course General Manager commented the Golf Course is self sufficient. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-29) Recommendation to approve the Community Assisted/Shared Appreciation Homebuyer Pilot Program, appropriate $480,000 in HOME Funds, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement with Northbay Ecumenical Homes and Related Agreements. Don Bergen, Alameda, spoke in opposition to the staff recommendation. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (*98-30) Recommendation to authorize execution of Contractor Amendment No. 2 with Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program for Lead-Based Paint Hazard Control Grant Funds. Accepted. (98-31) Recommendation to approve an Agreement between the City of Alameda and the Alameda Unified School District for the transfer of four buses to the Alameda Unified School District. Don Bergen, Alameda, stated the School District should pay the full price for the buses. Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, stated the City and School District are a partnership. Councilmember Kerr stated the City is in a negotiating process with the School District regarding the space at the Historic Alameda High School for the Recreation and Park Department; there should be offers from the School District on how much rent they want before the City enters into any negotiations; the City should learn to be better bargainers with any entity. Councilmember Lucas stated there should be some cooperation and generosity from the School District. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the recommendation should be moved forward; the City Manager should negotiate the Lease; that he, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 like Councilmember Kerr, has heard it said that the School District would lease the area [of the Historical Alameda High School] to the City for a very small amount of money; a settlement should be negotiated; the City should decide on the worth of the buses and said worth be negotiated off whatever Lease price is charged for the space. Mayor Appezzato stated the City and School District should continue to cooperate as two elected jurisdictions; the City Manager should be allowed to continue to negotiate the Lease and the matter before Council should be referenced; and that he will support the staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog stated that he has no doubt the City Manager will negotiate aggressively, and Council should move forward [on the staff recommendation]. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (*98-32) Affidavit of City Manager and Chief of Police Pursuant to Section 17-11 of the Charter of the City of Alameda. Accepted. (*98-33) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,167,865.65. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (98-34) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Use Permit 97-32 to extend the Hours of Operation and to add a Food Mart at an existing Legal Non-conforming Service Station Facility. The property is located at 1310 Central Avenue. Appellant/Applicant: Pritpaul Sappal and Schivcharanjit Lal; and (98-34A) Resolution No. 12952, "Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Board's Denial of Use Permit 97-32, to Extend the Hours of Operation and to Add a Food Mart at an Existing Legal Non- conforming Service Station Facility at the Property Located at 1310 Central Avenue." Adopted. The following person spoke in opposition of denying the Appeal: Leslie A. Levy, Legal Counsel for the Appellant, stated pertinent issues at the Planning Board level were not addressed, no attention was paid to the actual land use considerations, all of the focus was on the neighbors' complaints; said property was operated in 1992, after many years of operation only as a fueling station; there had been auto repair work done intermittently; there had been Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 a cessation briefly; in 1992, another prior owner asked that the use be expanded back to include auto repair operations; auto repair is something her clients are willing to concede, that they will give up doing now in exchange for a different use; it was noted in the staff report back in 1992, that the only complaints from the neighbors at the time had to do with the auto repair operations, noise and so forth; notwithstanding the neighbors complaining then, the Planning Board, in 1992, allowed auto repair use based on the findings that the proposed use was the same or less intensive than the use legally established before the existing zoning; the location is compatible with other land uses in the neighborhood; the proposed use would be served by adequate transportation and service facilities, and the proposed use will not adversely affect other property owners; these were specific findings made and set forth in that [1992] staff report, one of the conditions, besides cleaning up the facility and so forth, was that the hours of operation be cut back; this was only because of the auto repair operations and was very clearly only because of that, not because of the fueling operations; Planning Director Meunier wrote a letter to the prior owner when said owner asked whether they would be able to go back to regular hours if auto repairs were stopped, to which the Planning Director responded: "Limitations in hours on the gas station are a condition of conducting the light duty automotive business on the site Should this repair use be abandoned, then the limitation on hours of operation for the gas station would terminate."; clients purchased the property not long after and spent $500,000 rehabilitating it; after they started operating, they realized that the permitted hours of operation were very restrictive and [they] wanted to go back to, at least, something akin to what was there before; it [hours of operation] used to be Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., Saturday and Sunday 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.; now hours of operation are much more reduced: until 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, Saturday until 4:00 p.m. she believes, and none on Sunday at all; her clients ask not only to go back to more expanded hours of operation, but also to have a mini-food mart in the cashier area of the operation for people who are going inside to pay for gas, it is not an intensification of a prior use, which is contrary to what the Planning Board staff report stated; they recognize that the neighbors would dearly love to see the business off the planet and not near their houses at all, but the law does not allow the neighbors to simply shut down a pre-existing business that has been recognized as being there for more than fifty years; in fact, a letter from the Marla Daugherty [neighbor] back in 1992, indicated that she knew when she bought her home it was next to a gas station; it is a mixed area, this must be accepted and recognized by the neighbors; they [legal counsel and clients] are concerned because at the Planning Board Hearing there were a number of irregularities, as follows: (1) even though the clients offered to withdraw the auto repair operations aspect, the Board did not discuss the issue of whether the new use, either expanded hours Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 and/or food mart, would be a better, cleaner, safer use; there was no discussion at all, there was simply a parade of speakers talking about how they did not want to have this operation going on at all, essentially; the Planning Board Members also expressly refused to consider anything less than a 24-hour operation; the Application was for 24 hours, but in the alternative, something less; when they [clients] pointed out there was an alternative in the Application, the Planning Board Members said no that is not the case; nobody really had the time to check it at the time,-but, in fact, it is there [in the application]; they [clients] did ask for less hours; they [Board] treated it as an all or nothing proposition; the Planning Board completely reversed the findings just mentioned; the Board reversed itself on all those findings without any reason given for reversing said findings which were the bases of the prior Use Permit; only one Member spoke up and said that the City of Alameda had adopted a new policy since 1992, meant to preserve the residential area, therefore the Board could do that kind of reversal; that, in fact, is not the case; there has been no change in City policy since 1992; the General Plan had been amended prior to that time; they looked through public records, talked to Planning people, it simply is not a true statement; there would be no logical reason for finding that cessation of auto repair and changing to this new use or expanded hours would be incompatible given the prior findings; the Planning Board spent a considerable amount of time listening to complaints about alleged violations of the existing Permit, said matter was not before the Board at the time, there was no notice given to my clients that they were going to be attacked and challenged on the basis of alleged violations; that is another procedure, clients should have had other notice with an opportunity to be heard; due process was not given; the Board was clearly swayed by attacks and [it] simply was not fair; the Planning Board Members also made some statements; one [Member] outright accused clients of falsifying the petitions submitted, which showed 1400 people had signed in support, and also some local neighbors in support of expanded hours and the mini-mart; the Planning Board just dismissed that; in fact, claimed it was falsified; Board really showed a lack of neutrality on its part; said clients are darker skinned, speak with a heavy foreign accent, and it was a palpable-- Following reaction from the audience to Legal Counsel Levy's last comment, Mayor Appezzato stated a courtesy should be extended to Ms. Levy, and that members of the audience would have the right to discuss said comment. Legal Counsel Levy continued; stated that she believes if everyone had been present at the [Planning Board] meeting, they would have felt as her clients and she did; it [discrimination] is something very difficult to prove, however, [it] was felt; other arguments were made in support of her clients position: land use arguments, specific arguments about traffic, how this would not be an Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 intensification and so forth; they [arguments] are set forth in a letter she wrote before that Hearing which is attached as an Exhibit to Council's packet; that not a single word of discussion was had with respect to why the mini - market would not be a problem and a better use than auto repair; after the Planning Board meeting, at the suggestion of the Planning staff, the clients, some neighbors and the Planning Board Members met to determine if they could come up with some compromise; that she set forth in a letter what her clients said they would like to have as a compromise- - e.g., not sell to minors, chain the facility in the evening, dim the lights, and so forth, all was rejected out of hand; the bases of the Appeal are set forth in bold on the last two pages of the [Legal Counsel] report in terms of a legal basis: abusive discretion, unfair bias, and so forth; that she has more or less already stated what those bases stem from, and the facts as just stated; Council should consider that Land Use Law requires land use issues to be considered on their merits, and not simply neighbors unhappy with an existing use Mayor'Appezzato stated that allegations of discrimination need to be proven; that a lot of words are said in the heat of discussion that may not really be true. Councilmember Daysog inquired what the basis is for Appellant accepting the idea of not going forward with auto repair. Attorney Levy responded that it was simply a compromise offered in exchange for having the mini -mart; there is already a building with three bays for auto repair work, but clients believe the expanded hours and the ability to sell convenience foods to people coming in anyway, would offset auto repair work; that she, in fact, urged clients to consider [it] as a tradeoff; currently clients are allowed to conduct auto repair operations under the Permit; they will do so because, economically, that is the only feasible thing they can do; this was simply an offer to withdraw that [auto repair] and replace with what they consider to be cleaner, safer, less noisy, [and] less of a nuisance; they looked at the prior history as well and saw that [auto repair] was what the neighbors had been concerned with in the past, and thought this would be a better fall back position for them; it is a compromise. Councilmember Daysog stated that he had two observations: 1) the assumption that auto repair work for the mini mart is tradeable; maybe that assumption is open to question; and, 2) if there is a sound argument for limiting auto repair in the first place, whether argument was raised in 1992 or 1998, would that same argument still hold for any other uses? Attorney Levy stated on the first point, in Land Use Law, there is such a concept as higher, better use; there is almost a hierarchy set up; in some resources you can even find what the hierarchy is, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 and probably in the local Code the same thing applies; residential, for example, is a higher, better use than commercial, but there may be even a further breakdown; they are talking about two commercial uses; and so the question should have been addressed and was not, and that is: Would auto repair be cleaner, for example, than selling food items to patrons who have to go in anyway and pay the cashier? Would it be less noisy? Would it be less intrusive to the neighbors in other ways?; those are the questions that you ask in determining whether it is better or not, and was not addressed at the Board level; on the second point, if clients cease auto repair and are able to have the mini-mart confined in that area where the auto repair now would be, and they have expanded hours, they would be hand in hand; in other words, the auto repair would disappear; so the reason for the restricted hours also disappears, because that is what Planning Director Meunier stated was the reason they reduced the hours in the first place--because of auto repair; the neighbors did not want the noise and-impact from auto repair; the Planning Director's letter makes it very clear that that is all it dealt with; fueling cars is less intrusive; the argument that she made, and was not considered, was if hours of operation are spread out, the influx of people coming is spread out; the other argument made, and not considered, was if someone needs to pick up milk and also get gas, they make one stop and alleviate some of the traffic--there is another food mart in the vicinity; that her first letter to the Planning Board covering some of the points is attached; others issues discussed were toxic aspects of auto repair as opposed to a mini-mart; there were a number of valid points which hopefully will be considered by Council; legally, Council has the right to look at this de novo, without looking back at all and just considering the land use aspects; and perhaps referring [matter] back with recommendations to the City Planning Department. In response to Vice Mayor DeWitt's inquiry concerning hours of operation, Attorney Levy stated that only the 24-hour operation was discussed by the Planning Board; that they would consider something less, and, in fact, in the letter attached--Exhibit 2--their request is that the hours of operation be Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 10 p.m., Sunday from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; they also stated they would operate the food mart with only convenience items--no liquor, no sales to minors, with signs posted "No Sales to Minors"; they also offered to chain the entrance at all times during closed hours to prevent vehicles from going in and out at night, shut of the 'air supply during closed hours, all lights out after hours of operation; those were the conditions they suggested that they would operate under; that they agreed to withdraw auto repair altogether as a compromise. The following person(s) spoke in favor of denying the appeal: William Taylor, Alameda Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 Bill Ake, Alameda LeRoy Kinzel, Alameda Dennis Daugherty, Alameda Marla Daugherty, Alameda (submitted -six letters) Dottie Nordin, Alameda Randall Miller, Alameda Morgan Jay Taylor, Alameda Wayne Milani, Alameda Don Patterson, Alameda Jean Kramlich, Alameda Phil Gravem, Alameda Bob Lynch, Alameda Raymond Cortes, Alameda Janelle Spatz, Alameda Vincent Perez, Alameda Don Bergen, Alameda Richard Noordyk, Alameda Margaret Alk, Alameda; and Janey Gibson, Alameda. Mayor Appezzato stated that he would support the Planning Board's decision; the "race" card is definitely not appropriate; that he served on the Planning Board back in 1990/1991, and said issue was not appealed to the City Council; that the Board took somewhat the same action, and the operator at that time was, in fact, a white male; the intensity asked for at that time was denied by the Planning Board and was not carried on Appeal to the City Council; that he had previously voted on the Planning Board to maintain the restrictions in place and to not allow further intensity of said operation; some of the use is grandfathered, and it will probably become residential property someday; the owner should have known, prior to purchasing the property, about the restrictions in place; to deny knowledge of the Use Permit restrictions or property uses is no excuse; that he expects the City to ensure that the allowed uses are followed, and there is no intensity above the uses in place; someday it should be residential; there are a lot of places in town with permitted uses, and someday they will become residential in accordance with the law, etcetera; it [matter before Council] is unfortunate; it is not a racial issue; and that he will support the Planning Board's decision to deny the Appeal. Councilmember Daysog stated that the preponderance of facts seems to be against the Appellant and the Applicant; when the property was bought, certainly so too was the Permit which specified the uses of the area; there was discussion of the Design Review Board approving a low profile signage also; perhaps the biggest issue is that it is a residential area; so, while there are certain uses being changed from auto repair to a food mart, still those uses have to be weighed against the overall zoning for that area; fundamentally, it comes down to two questions for him, which were answered satisfactorily: If a sound argument for limiting repairs Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 existed in the past, does it not follow that those arguments still hold today, even for subsequent alternate uses? and, Are we to be less vigilant with respect to the issue of "intensity of use," which limited auto repair hours in the first place because what is now being proposed is a food mart?; the answer to that is "no," we are not be to less vigilant; and for those reasons, he would move to uphold the action of the Planning Board: denial of the Use Permit by adopting the Resolution included in the Agenda Packet. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated that she believes very strongly about maintaining the quality in residential neighborhoods; neighborhoods either go up or go down; when the mini-mart went in at the corner of Encinal Avenue and Park Street, it was supposed to go in with limited hours; soon it became 24- hours [operation] and the commercial zoning suddenly extended over to Jackson Park; there is no such thing as a static neighborhood; that she is very strongly in favor of people being able to live in peace and quiet in their houses, and she supports the Planning Board. Vice Mayor DeWitt questioned whether the Use Permit in existence requires the station to be closed at 6:00 p.m. The Planning Director responded that the station is required to be closed no later than 6:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, no later than 4:00 p.m. Saturday, and not open on Sunday. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that 6:00 p.m. is early for a gas station to close; that he is not in favor of adding any uses to the service station other than what the original Use Permit provides; it appears that some kind of alternative could be given to the Station to allow for operation at an hour that would keep it from going out of business; during the summer, people are not home from work at 6:00 p.m. and it is generally the time when they get gas; the Planning Board ruled that a 24-hour operation is out, which he upholds; the Planning Board also ruled it did not want a mini-mart there; however, closing at 6:00 p.m. is early; that he is in favor of upholding the Planning Board's recommendation, but the business owner deserves to have his business open past 6:00 p.m. Councilmember Daysog stated that everyone on the Council is in favor of maintaining neighborhood quality; in order to do that, the Council must look at the facts of the case; Council must do that in every situation; and the facts tonight certainly support the Planning Board's recommendation. At the request of Councilmember Lucas, the Planning Director addressed the matter of hours as stated by Vice Mayor DeWitt. The Planning Director commented that there are two questions to be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 addressed; the Application made by Mr. Sappal was for 24-hour operation and a proposal for 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m.; Mr. Sappal was advised that staff would have a hard time supporting the proposal; there would be strong neighborhood opposition; Mr. Sappal was encouraged to meet with the neighbors before going to the Planning Board; Mr. Sappal was not willing to do so at that time; that she provided an opinion in 1992 to the tenant and in 1996 the Assistant City Attorney provided an opinion to Mr. Sappal which stated that the legal non-conforming use--the longer hours--was extinguished in exchange for the Use Permit; Attorney Levy is correct that was her [Meunier's] opinion in 1992; there is additional information that has been provided to the Planning Board and the Applicant. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether Mr. Sappal could have the prior longer hours, not 24 hours, if there were only gas sales. The Planning Director responded, in terms of the recent City Attorney's office legal opinion, Applicants are bound by the hours either for gas sales or for--that is not something Attorney Levy has been able to respond to; the most recent legal opinion states "no," that Applicants have to be bound by those hours, whether they continue auto repair use or not. Vice Mayor DeWitt inquired whether the new owners could go back to the Planning Board to extend hours to 10:00 p.m., if there were only gas sales. The Planning Director responded the matter of whether there was a prohibition on re-applications on substantially the same Application within a one-year period was being checked; a proposal which did not include a mini-mart and for substantially a different set of hours, would be sufficiently different and could be considered within the year; after the year, Applicants could request the same use again; and reduced hours--a different set of hours--could be considered. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. *** Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 9:18 p.m. and reconvened the Meeting at 9:32 p.m. * * * (98-35) Mayor Appezzato announced that there was a Special Meeting of the City Council; he requested the Council to make a motion to adjourn the Regular Council Meeting and then convene the Special Meeting of the City Council to address one agenda item that would not take very long. [See Janaury 20, 1998 Special Meeting Minutes, Paragraph Number 98-54A.] Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 Councilmember Lucas so moved. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there was any discussion; hearing none, he called for the question. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Following the Special Council Meeting, Mayor Appezzato reconvened the Regular Council Meeting at 9:34 p.m. * * * (98-36) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's decision to deny a Certificate of Approval to demolish an existing Single-Family Residence located at 1621 Encinal Avenue. Appellant/Applicant: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints; and (98-36A) Resolution No. 12953, "Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Historical Advisory Board's Denial of the Certificate of Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence Located at 1621 Encinal Avenue." Adopted. The following person spoke in opposition of denying the Appeal: Scott Robison, Bishop of the Alameda Ward and representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, stated the Church has wonderful neighbors, the Church has existed in the community for some fifty years and is proud to be a member of the community; the members of the Ward are residents of the City; many members of the community have attended Church functions and recognize the severe limitation in parking; at no expense to the City, the Church wants to mitigate the parking problem; for convenience and safety, said proposal makes sense; many opposed to plan are fearful that expansion of the parking lot will present an eyesore; the Church's plan calls for beautiful landscaping which will not detract from the beauty of the neighborhood; he recognizes the position taken by the Historical Advisory Board relative to the property at 1621 Encinal Avenue; however, by the Board's own admission, the property is not unique in and of itself, nor can the Board limit the present or subsequent owner from adding onto or upward to this property, thus altering its unique character; nor can the Board guarantee that the property will not fall into disrepair and become an eyesore which the immediate neighbors wish to avoid; it is his position that Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-21.4 (b) (4) is inapplicable and that it relates directly to a designated historical monument, and this specific property is listed only as a Type S resource on the Historical Building Study List, and not a designated Alameda Historic Monument; regardless of the interpretation, the City Council has the right, the obligation and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 e the opportunity to look at and decide a broader issue, one that benefits a larger sector of the community and provides for increased safety and welfare of Alameda citizens; a compromise may be in order; that he submits for Council's consideration, that the Church, after purchasing the home at 1621 Encinal Avenue, is willing and able to sell the house for $1.00 in exchange for its relocation to another location in the City; that he knows of at least one willing buyer, present this evening, and is willing to go forward with this effort; there are probably others and a potential for Habitat for Humanity; it is the Church's desire to mitigate the parking problem for the safety and welfare of the community; a promise that the beauty of the neighborhood will be preserved, and a willingness to have the bungalow relocated, Jay Pimentel, Alameda, read a written statement from the owner of the property, Mr. Thomas Roberts. Don Bergen, Alameda Lance Russum, Attorney for Thomas Roberts [1621 Encinal Avenue Property Owner]; and David Ashton, Alameda. The following person(s) spoke in favor of denying the Appeal: Richard Armstrong, Alameda (submitted a letter) Daniel Williams, Alameda Charles Dempsey, Alameda Susan Osanna, Alameda Osheena Emerson, Alameda Kate Kretzmer, Alameda Paul Breitkopf, Alameda James Gary, Alameda Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (submitted a letter and additional signatures for petition) Bill Smith, Alameda Frank Gurecki, Alameda Scott Brady, Chair, Historical Advisory Board; and Gerhard Degemann, Alameda. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he recommends [moves] the Council uphold the Historical Advisory Board's recommendation which denies the demolition of the building. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Section 13.21.4 (b) (4) of the Alameda Municipal Code applied to the building under discussion, to which the Assistant City Attorney, Teri Highsmith, responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether the building was a historical monument, to which the Planning Director responded it was not; she noted that the section of the Code which states "all the rules of City Monuments apply to the demolition of buildings on the Historic Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 Buildings Study List" would be applied to said building. Councilmember Lucas questioned whether the neighbors' concern regarding a paved parking lot could be mitigated by landscaping, to which the Planning Director responded that once the issue of demolition is addressed, there would be consideration of allowing the parking lot subject to Use Permit review. Councilmember Lucas inquired if the house was moved [from current site], whether it would be considered demolished, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog questioned whether there was discussion regarding the parking of cars in the neighborhood during community meetings, to which the Planning Director stated once the question of whether the building is historic and should be protected is resolved, the question of parking is addressed at the Planning Board level. Councilmember Daysog stated the burden of proof should be shouldered on the people who want change to some extent. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion by Vice Mayor DeWitt to uphold the Historical Advisory Board's recommendation. Councilmember Kerr stated the Church has done an exemplary job of maintenance; the Church is a wonderful neighbor; it is unusual for people to come before the Planning Board or Council wanting to provide more parking; Council, however, should follow the legal guidelines; neighborhoods are destroyed not all at once, but house by house, and that she has to give that serious consideration also Councilmember Lucas stated when the Historical Study List was created, it was not that well publicized in the community; this [issue] shows what happens if you are unfortunate enough to get on the Historical Study List--you cannot do with your property what you want; some people at that time [when List was created] asked to be removed; they did not want a limitation on their property rights; that she has serious problems with the Municipal Code Section on the matter; said section limits what the owner of a single home property can do; said section restricts all Alamedans; the Code is not clear; the Historical Advisory Board can delay the demolition of a building unquestionably for review of historical preservation reasons; that she has concern about the legality of the Board stopping it totally; that she is not sure the [former] Council when approving Historical Study List, was aware of the consequences; that she appreciates the neighborhood's concern; there is another legitimate concern: churches belong in neighborhoods; Alameda has churches inter-mingled in all of its residential areas, including R-1 zones; churches are a strengthening factor for the residential areas; that she does not Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 want to to discourage this Church; all churches are amenable to mitigations, including the Mormon Church; and that she will not support the motion. Mayor Appezzato stated that he truly empathizes with the Church; its contribution to the community has been significant; however, to destroy a home, even if it was not on the Historical List for a parking lot, is very, very difficult for him; that he also finds it very difficult not to support the Historical Advisory Board, which has taken a great deal of time on this issue; that he believes in churches in neighborhoods; there are many churches in the community that have a parking problem; unfortunately, it has to be dealt with; that he is not sure destroying a home is the way to proceed; Alameda does not have very many structures left; Alameda is a small community; there are not many additional homes going to be built; new homeowners could afford a home [1621 Encinal Avenue] of that size; and that he will support the motion. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Lucas - 1. (98-37) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical Advisory Board's decision to deny a Certificate of Approval to permit the demolition of the building located at 2411 Webb Avenue, a contributing structure within the National Register Park Street Commercial District which is a City Monument. Appellant/Applicant: Jim Thomson for David Lau; and (98-37A) Resolution No. 12954, "Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Historical Advisory Board's Denial of the Certificate of Approval to Demolish a Contributing Structure within the National Register Park Street Commercial District which is a City Monument Located at 2411 Webb Avenue." Adopted. The following person(s) spoke in opposition of denying the appeal: James Thomson, Agent representing the Appellant Lance Russum, Alameda; and Don Bergen, Alameda. The following person(s) spoke in favor of denying the appeal: Richard Knight, Alameda Judith Lynch, Alameda Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (submitted additional signatures for petition) Pete Halberstadt, Park Street Business Association Scott Brady, Chair, Historical Advisory Board Paul Breitkopf, Alameda Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 Gerhard Degemann, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding seismic upgrade requirements, the Building Official stated the building at 2411 Webb Avenue is out of compliance; the timeline required construction to be completed by November 1, 1997; rehabilitation plans were submitted [by the property owner]; however, plans were not completed by the deadline. In response to Councilmember Lucas, the Building Official stated that he could not estimate cost; it [repair of 2411 Webb Avenue] is not a simple fix because a wall is out of plum; if said repair only required bolting and tying the roof to the walls, $25,000 would be a reasonable price; however, repair costs would include fixing the leaning wall. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding restoring only the facade, the Planning Director stated an application could be submitted to the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) [requesting demolition of everything except the facade]; the front facade is the [historical] contributing factor to the street. In response to Councilmember Lucas, the Planning Director stated use of the building for office space is permitted by zoning. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding the cost of seismic work, the Planning Director stated $30,000 was the estimate submitted by Mr. Thomson as part of the application; however, Mr. Thomson gave testimony tonight stating said figure increased to $56,000. In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry, the Planning Director stated there is not a provision preventing repetitive applications for demolition permits. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated this building is, indeed, a Historical Monument which is part of the character of Alameda; said buildings should not be demolished; there are many uses for this building; funds can be found to restore the building; there is a present danger of the building collapsing; however, the City should take necessary steps, within its authority, to ensure compliance and get the building either fixed or partially fixed; some remediation can be done to keep the building from falling down. Mayor Appezzato stated that he agrees with the HAB; and inquired if there is a way to save some of the historic significance by building a new interior and saving the historic facade. The Planning Director responded there are two questions being asked: 1.) Does that [saving facade] accomplish the historic Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 preservation purpose?; if only the facade is saved, it would still be a demolition because more than 30% of the structure would be removed; 2.) Whether, from a practical and physical perspective, it [saving the facade] could be accomplished?; probably, because, it has been done before in other complicated buildings where the facade wall was important and significant; the property owner and staff have not had the opportunity to review [saving the facade]. Mayor Appezzato stated if the leaning wall falls down, over 30% of the building could be lost; and it is not know whether the leaning wall even can be preserved. In response to Mayor Appezzato, Mr. Thomson stated [saving the facade] is probably worth exploring; however, the leaning wall is touching the Credit Union; the Credit Union has put the property owner on notice that they [Credit Union] intend to seek legal action should they [Credit Union] not be allowed to continue on other means; there are other ways to approach this. Mayor Appezzato stated saving the facade should be sent back to the HAB for their comment. Mr. Thomson stated maintaining or restoring the front wall may be an alternative; that he believes the east [leaning] wall is doomed to be legally allowed to be demolished or it will fall down very soon. Councilmember Lucas stated, procedurally, Council should deny the appeal and request staff to assist [Mr. Thomson] in working out the alternatives. Mr. Thomson inquired whether a conditional denial would be appropriate. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council would have to make a finding on the facts before them that there is no viable economic use for the building; then once that finding is made, remand it back to the HAB for action specific to tonight's discussion; however, it might be cleaner to deny [the Appeal] on the basis of evidence before them; the applicant would be free to go back to the HAB and make another application. Councilmember Lucas stated that she would like to follow the Assistant City Attorney's advice because she has concern about the applicant's willingness to work with the City; Mr. Thomson obviously cares about the City and the property, but the property owner has neglected the property over the years; that she would not like to give a conditional permit at this time; and staff should work very closely, and even waive fees, to encourage the applicant to work with staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 The Planning Director stated there is a provision within the fee ordinance to allow fees to be waived for applications resubmitted within 60 days. Councilmember Lucas moved denial of the appeal; that Council encourage the applicant to resubmit an application; that if it is acceptable to Planning staff, the fees be waived; and that said matter return to the HAB for review. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mr. Thomson stated another alternative would be to continue said matter to allow the owner and potential buyer to come to some agreement upon a reformulation of the demolition work; in other words, to specify maintaining the front wall. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry, the Assistant City Attorney requested Mr. Thomson to clarify whether he [Mr. Thomson] was suggesting to modify the application and asking for it [application] to be considered de novel by [the City Council]. Mr. Thomson responded in the affirmative. The Assistant City Attorney stated said matter would still need to be considered by the HAB. Councilmember Kerr stated that she will support the existing motion; one enjoyment visiting cities like Tiburon is that they have saved their old buildings and made wonderful new uses of them; Alameda has that potential and, in many cases, it has been done. Mayor Appezzato stated the cost of deferred maintenance is no excuse [to allow demolition]; if the City did that, everybody wanting to demolish a building would let it deteriorate so that it could be destroyed; the oil tanks have to be remediated whether the building stays or goes; the City destroyed a 100-year old building to expand a gas station which was a mistake; the Alameda Credit Union may draw more customers by not taking down the historic structure; City Hall and the Historic Alameda High School were saved; there is not much left of historic significance; and the City will work with the applicant to try and make it work. On the call for the questions, the motion passed by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-38) Councilmember Lucas moved the meeting continue beyond 11:00 p.m. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 (98-39) Public Hearing to consider cost for abatement of nuisance at 1310 Pacific Avenue; and Resolution Confirming the Costs of Abatement on Property at 1310 Pacific Avenue, Alameda, California, and Imposing a Special Assessment on the Property. Not adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the Public Hearing and stated staff requested Council to continue said matter. Councilmember Lucas moved the Hearing be continued. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Don Roberts, Alameda, addressed the City Council. (98-40) Public Hearing to consider cost for abatement of nuisance at 2052 San Antonio Avenue; and (98-40A) Resolution No. 12955, "Confirming the Costs of Abatement on Property at 2052 San Antonio Avenue, Alameda, California, and Imposing a Special Assessment on the Property. Adopted. Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-41) Recommendation to consider hiring a Specialist in Hazardous and Toxic Waste/Materials. [Planning Board] Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-42) Recommendation to approve proposed Program to assist Homeowners in making their Homes Seismically Safer. [Regarding Written Communication dated September 1, 1997 from Kenneth Gutleben] Don Bergen, Alameda, spoke in opposition to staff recommendation. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of staff recommendation. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Mayor Appezzato requested staff to work with TCI and prepare a Press Release for newspapers. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 28, 1998 (98-43) Introduction of Ordinance Adopting a Contract of Sale from the City of Alameda to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda for the Real Property Generally Known as the Fleet Industrial Supply Center. Introduced. Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-44) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Article I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building Construction and Maintenance) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Adding New Subsections to Subsection 13-1.2 (Modifications, Amendments and Deletions to the Uniform Building Code). Introduced. Councilmember Lucas moved introduction of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98-45) Ordinance No. 2751 N.S., "Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Property within the City of Alameda from R-2 (Two Family Residence) Zoning District to R-2-PD (Two Family Residence Planned Development Combining) Zoning District by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., for that Property Located at 1109 Buena Vista Avenue. Finally passed. Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) (98-46) Don Bergen, Alameda, stated that the SSHRB should be self supportive. (98-47) John Fee, Alameda, addressed various City issues, including Alameda Point. (98-48) Bill Smith, Alameda, addressed various City issues, including the property located at 1621 Encinal Ave. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) (98-49) Mayor Appezzato reported on the former and current Recycling Programs. (98-50) Mayor Appezzato complimented the Police-, Fire-, and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 Public Works Departments their performance during the recent major storm. (98-51) Mayor Appezzato announced that he would be in Washington, D.C. the week of January 25, 1998 to attend the U.S. Conference of Mayors. (98-52) Councilmember Kerr announced the availability of sandbags at the City's Maintenance Yard. (98-53) Councilmember Kerr remarked that speakers should not address non-agenda items under Oral Communications. (98-54) Councilmember Daysog requested an off-agenda report on the work plan for the City's budget. Mayor Appezzato suggested the City Manager schedule work sessions for the City Council. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 12:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998 N� ^ � � � � "" ^~ o[ Alameda �� " � � U �~ °. . � � . � MEMO To: Diane Felsch From: Barbara Kerr Subject: My Vote at the Last City Council Meeting Date: February 3, 1998 The last item on the City Council agenda on January 20,1998 was passed unanimously. | had meant to abstain, However, due to the facl that it was approaching midnight in a meeting which had started at 5 P.M., | had a lapse in my attention span and voted for it, This in no way affected the outcome, but | wanted to make this a matter of record even though it is too late to change the vote, Please so notify the rest of the City Council. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - JANUARY 20, 1998 - - 8:00 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 9:33 p.m. Roll Call - PRESENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. ABSENT: None. (98-54A) Recommendation to allow City staff to apply for Hazardous Mitigation Grant Funding for the replacement of Fire Station #3. Councilmember Lucas moved approval of staff recommendation. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The notice for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council January 20, 1998