Loading...
1998-11-17 Joint CIC and Special and Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 17. 1998- -6:25 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 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: (98-605) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator: Human Resources Director and Austris Rungis; Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters, Local #689 - IAFF. (98-606) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name of Cases: Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) v. City of Alameda and Bureau of Electricity; Tirado et al v. City of Alameda et al; and City of Alameda, Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity (CLASS) v. Port of Oakland, Board of Port Commissioners. Following the Closed Session, Mayor Appezzato announced that regarding Conference with Labor Negotiator, the Council gave instructions to the City's negotiators; regarding AUSD v. City of Alameda Bureau of Electricity, the Council obtained a briefing on status of litigation and gave instructions to the City Attorney; regarding Tirado v. City of Alameda, the Council obtained a briefing and gave instruction to the City Attorney; and regarding City of Alameda and CLASS v. Port of Oakland, the Council gave instructions to the City Attorney. Adjournment There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7: 25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Fe sch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 17. 1998- -6:55 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor/Chair Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (CC 98-607) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property: (CIC 98-48) Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Alameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission, and Catellus Development Corporation; Under Negotiation: Price and terms. Following the Closed Session, Mayor Appezzato announced that the Council/Commission gave instructions to the City's negotiator. Adjournment There being no further business before the Council/Commission, Mayor/Chair Appezzato adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, D ne B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk Secretary, Commission Community Improvement The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Joint Meeting Alameda City Council and Community Improvement Commission November 17, 1998 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -NOVEMBER 17, 1998- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m. Vice Mayor DeWitt led the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor Robert Broekema, First Christian Reformed Church, gave the Invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF None. CONSENT CALENDAR THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*98-608) Resolution No. 13060, "Amending the Alameda Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Resolution by Establishing the Salary for the Positions of Public Works Director and Deputy Public Works Director." Adopted. (*98-609) Resolution No. 13061, "Amending the Management and Confidential Employees Association Salary Resolution to Include and Establish Salaries for those Classifications as Established by the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda for the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Management and Confidential Employees, when such a Classification is Assigned to a City Position." Adopted. (*98-610) Resolution No. 13062, "Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding and Salary Resolution Between the Alameda Police Officers Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 1998 and Ending December 31, 2001." Adopted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 (*98-611) Resolution No. 13063, "Approving Revised Memorandum of Understanding and Salary Resolution Between the Alameda Police Managers Association and the City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 1998 and Ending December 31, 2002." Adopted. (*98-612) Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Repealing Section 1-5 (Penalty Provisions) of Chapter I (General) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Section 1-5 (Penalty Provisions: Enforcement) to Chapter I. Introduced. (*98-613) Ordinance Authorizing the Execution of Lease between the Alameda Bureau of Electricity (Lessor) and Pacific Bell Company (Lessee) for Real Property (Inner Duct/Conduit). Introduced. (*98-614) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,191,216.27. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (98-615) Public Hearing to consider a Parcel Map, PM 7241, to divide a 6,900 square foot lot, which contains two single family dwelling units, into two parcels, with each parcel containing a single family dwelling. The property is located at 3241/3243 Garfield Avenue. Applicant: Dennis and Natalie Fay; and (93-615A) Resolution No. 13064, "Approving Parcel Map Application, PM 7241, at 3241/3243 Garfield Avenue, for Dennis and Natalie Fay." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Opponents Joseph Baca, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Appezzato requested the Planning Director to respond to Mr. Baca's concern regarding parking. The Planning Director stated the proposal would take an existing property with two homes and divide; one additional space will be created. Councilmember Kerr's inquired whether there are two existing parking spaces in the back and one space will be created in the front for a total of three parking spaces, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato stated an additional parking space will result from Council action tonight. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 Vice Mayor DeWitt moved the staff recommendation. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato stated two rentals might become homeownership opportunities. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98 -616) Public Hearing to consider a Parcel Map, PM 7290, to divide a 10,491 square foot lot into two parcels, each with an existing, detached single family dwelling. The property is located at 53/57 Mecartney Road. Applicant: Florencio Tayag; and (98 -616A) Resolution No 13065, "Approving Parcel Map, PM 7290, at 53/57 Mecartney Road, for Florencio Tayag." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. There being no speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Lucas moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98 -617) Public Hearing to consider approval of Parcel Map 7374 (PM- 98 -05) to subdivide the property located at 1325 Atlantic Avenue (200 -600 Wind River Way) which consists of a 5 parcel division involving 32 acres. The property is within the CM /PD Zoning District (Commercial Manufacturing Zoning District /Planned Development Combining District). Applicant: Wind River Systems; and (98 -617A) Resolution No. 13066, " Approving Parcel Map 7374 at 1325 Atlantic Avenue (200 -600 Wind River Way)." Adopted. Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Planning Director stated a supplemental staff report [dated November 17, 1998] requested Council to consider amending condition number 8 to give flexibility to resolve timing with respect to conveyance of property to Encinal [Yacht Club]; and requested the motion incorporate said change. Mayor Appezzato responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 On the call for the question, the motion with amendment carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (98-618) Recommendation to accept Final Report from the Ad Hoc Homeownership Committee recommending Policies to achieve Alameda's Goal for increasing homeownership. [Ad Hoc Homeownership Committee] Gregg Fujita, President, Board of Realtors and Co-Chair of Ad Hoc Homeownership Committee, reviewed the Committee report, including recommendations and observations; stated the Committee has made significant progress in meeting the Council's charge, meetings were open to the public; the Committee recommends there be continuing public input and guidance to City staff on developing programs to increase the percentage of homeownership in Alameda; a new Ad Hoc Committee would be of great benefit to City staff in developing programs to increase homeownership; the new Committee would provide guidance and public input into the actual development of homeownership programs; in addition, the Council should form a body to study and make recommendations on impacts of rising rents. Mayor Appezzato inquired of Co-Chair Fujita whether the Housing Authority and Housing Commission could work with the current Committee, which would prevent establishing another brand new committee. Councilmember Kerr thanked the Committee for its outstanding work. Co-Chair Fujita announced the following members of the Committee: John Abrate, Co-Chair, Economic Development Commission; Danielle Bailey, Social Service Human Relations Board; Greg Boller, Mark Chandler, Kimberlee Garfinkle, Monetha Hatcher, Victor Jin, Alameda Association of Realtors, David Mercado, Housing Commission; John Piziali, Planning Board; Ginger Schuler and Mark Wommack. Mayor Appezzato stated implementation of the Report is key; perhaps the Housing Commission is the direction to go in and said Commission could call upon the Committee. Co Chair Fujita stated Committee Members would like to be involved in the implementation process; perhaps a Work Group could meet with Councilmembers, City Staff and Housing Commission during the 120 day period [in the report]. Mayor Appezzato stated if the Committee is willing to stay on, the Committee has his blessings for the next 120 days or beyond. Co-Chair Fujita pointed out the Committee voted in favor of the 120 day period. Mayor Appezzato stated the Committee could report to both Council Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 and the Housing Authority. Bill Dow, Alameda, stated in order to achieve 60% homeownership, affordable housing must be built that Alameda renters and workers can afford to buy; moving Alameda renters into homeownership frees up apartments and also helps the rent problem; building executive homes does not accomplish the [60% homeownership] objective; and contractors could be required to build affordable housing and not accept cash payments in lieu of affordable housing. Peggy Doherty, Alameda, stated that she is glad the Committee is recommending the City to study the escalating rents in Alameda; suggested the work done by the Base Reuse Advisory Group related to East Housing be considered, and she would like said area developed as a diverse, mixed -use site. Steven Gerstle, Alameda City Green Party, stated the City should have programs to allow renters to become homeowners; society offers many benefits to homeowners that are not available to renters, many provisions of the Ad Hoc Committee's > Report are good, but a few would hurt renters- -the very people the City is seeking to help; two recommendations are harmful to renters because they reduce the number of available rental units; one provision encourages the conversion of apartments to condominiums, and the other encourages the reconversion of homes that were divided into apartments; rents are skyrocketing; Alameda families are being forced to relocate to other communities; and a single unit of rental housing cannot be lost. Irene Dieter, Alameda, stated current Alameda residents who rent should not be displaced by owners and forced to leave the community; and questioned whether a study was conducted comparing income of Alameda renters and cost of proposed new housing, and whether consideration was given to rehabilitate the existing Navy housing, using sweat equity, as owner - occupied housing. Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated the Committee did a good job in addressing the housing needs of a large portion of Alameda residents,' he is concerned that either 8,500 new homes need to be built to meet the objective, or 4,000 rental units converted to owner - occupied units; he referred to a 1981 Times Star Newspaper Article in which the State commented on the City's Housing Element and its [State's]` concern that said Element should be revised to include a discussion on steps to mitigate Measure A (1973) and provide affordable housing, including assisted housing at a level consistent with plans for Bay Area communities; Alameda admitted it would maintain a supply of rental units at a high proportion to existing inventory; Alameda was asked to include a policy supporting rental- as opposed to simply owner - occupied housing in projects using public lands set aside by the City for housing; another article [June 1979, Times Star Newspaper] of concern to him Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 had to do with the ability to follow through on the recommendations that the policy made; said article addressed the Housing Element and indicated the City modified said Element to help provide starter homes for low- and moderate-income persons, instead of subsidizing rental units as part of its new housing strategy; article also indicated City would establish a non-profit housing development corporation and outlined an inclusionary zoning policy requiring developers of housing developments with more than 25 units to provide 10% of the units at prices affordable to moderate- income families and another 5% affordable to families with incomes under $16,000; in 1979, the homes in Harbor Bay [Isle] Island were selling for $210,000; and he questions the intent of the policy of achieving said ownership percentage. Christine Harrison, Alameda, commended the efforts of the Ad Hoc Homeownership Committee, which included seeking public input; stated the recommendations do not consider the possibilities for East Housing; architectural studies state it would be very economically feasible to rehab some the units; said Housing has a high number of two and three bedroom homes which is the highest demand in Alameda; the Committee also recommended developing housing priced at $130,000 to $220,000; the East Housing units would be an extraordinary opportunity to have a mix of homeownership and rental units; previous drafts of Committee's Report included notes from the public Work Shop, and that she would like to request said notes be included in the Report before the City Council. Mayor Appezzato stated the notes from the public Work Shop should be added to the Committee's Report. Mayor Appezzato stated that he could support the current Committee continuing to serve, and the Housing Commission should also be involved. Councilmember Kerr stated the Committee's recommendations and policy are quite lengthy; the recommendations are important and should be evaluated by the Planning Staff for inclusion into [new] Housing Element; she questions some of the recommendations; the Committee may not understand Redevelopment Law requirements for developers to include lower than market rate housing, and also the 20% tax increment to be set aside for subsidizing housing; Redevelopment law puts a heavy burden to provide housing; that she is not in favor of in-lieu fees for inclusionary housing requirements; it is time to put the Committee's recommendations into the planning process; the policy recommendations should be sent to the Planning Staff for inclusion into the Housing Element of the General Plan, when it occurs, rather than establishing another committee; the Planning Board has stated it will consider recommendations when considering new developments; the Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) should not be overlooked; no body is more Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 familiar with the rental market; RRAC should provide input to the Housing Authority; the Committee's Report should be accepted by the City Council, and the policy recommendations sent to the Planning Staff with the intent of being evaluated for inclusion into the Housing Element, Mayor Appezzato stated that he had no problem with placing the recommendations into the Housing Element; however, implementation of some of the recommendations should begin; and the public should be allowed another opportunity to make refinements. Councilmember Kerr stated the implementation of financial assistance has been launched, and the Ad Hoc Committee deserves praise. Mayor Appezzato stated the Housing Authority should be involved, because the Community Development Department is where the financial assistance has begun; the two groups work together; and the current Committee could meet for another 120 days with the Housing Authority, refine [policy/recommendations], and report back to the City Council. Councilmember Lucas stated the policy/recommendations should be in the Housing Element and that practical implementation also begun; the Council was concerned about the disproportionate share of rentals in Alameda; Alameda had a higher percentage of renters than homeowners, which is the opposite of other communities in the area; Council believed it was desirable to provide more opportunities for homeownership; Community Development is assisting middle income people; homeownership is not always affordable in Alameda to middle income people; the City also wants to increase homeownership opportunities for lower income people, which is where the Housing Authority comes in; there needs to be a balance of Housing Authority staff plus the Committee to provide for all segments of the community; perhaps there should be a committee composed of both groups to ensure all segments of the community are covered. Mayor Appezzato stated perhaps the current Committee and Housing Authority could report back to Council on whether said [Lucas] proposal is necessary; there are thirty three units currently being developed for low income persons: twenty six units on Buena Vista Avenue, three units on Regent Street and four units at Walnut Street and Santa Clara Avenue; and Alameda is taking steps [to address said matter]. Councilmember Daysog thanked the Committee for their time, effort and ideas ; stated it is important to translate the ideas into action now; it is critical to consider the 120 day working period; and various bodies, e.g. Housing Authority, RRAC, responsible for achieving some of the said goals should work with the Committee on implementation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the information provided by the Committee is excellent, including impacts on rental units and plans dealing with changing the variety of housing, the information needs to be evaluated further, e.g. Planning Board, Economic Development Commission, and RRAC; a great benefit to the City would be a non- profit organization that can help generate monies and implement the policies; implementing the goals and policies will be next important step; the Housing Authority's Housing Commission can be expanded; the Community Development Office has the capability of looking into certain policies issues provided by the Committee; there are organizations and people in the City that have the expertise to carry out the policies; the information provided should be included in the Housing Element, however, evaluated first by Planning Board, Housing Authority and RRAC; the City Manager and his staff should determine what type of organization is needed to implement some of the policy recommendations presented; and whether Ad Hoc Committee [sub- committees] should be permanent or divided between various standing bodies, and report back on what should be done to implement the policies. Mayor Appezzato stated the Planning Board should review the Report and the Housing Authority and Community Development have the talent to begin to implement some of the goals. Co -Chair Fujita stated the Committee has a high level of education [regarding matter] and worked hard, the Committee desires to assist in implementation process and is looking for direction from the City Council; and the Committee can provide assistance and rationale to whichever bodies Council deems necessary. Mayor Appezzato stated the Committee's recommendation is for Council to give guidance and to form a new committee; Council is trying to provide guidance and that he [ Appezzato] is trying to narrow the Committee's recommendation, e.g. instead of creating a new committee, and allow the current Committee, for the next 120 days, to begin the process with an established group like the Housing Authority; however, if a new committee is needed, it could take 120 days [to establish]. Co -Chair Fujita stated the Committee would like t to work with someone. Mayor Appezzato stated the Housing Authority has the talent and expertise. Councilmember Lucas stated Council should direct staff, e.g. Housing Authority, Planning and City Manager, to identify which Committee recommendations can be easily implemented in the immediate future; and to report back to Council within a short time. o start Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 Mayor Appezzato stated the entire package should be sent to the Housing Authority, along with the Ad Hoc Group, for 120 days, and directed to report back; and, if necessary, define which groups, e.g. Planning Board, should address [certain aspects of recommendations /policies]. Councilmember Kerr stated one reason the Planning staff should be involved is a number of the recommendations go above and beyond the current Housing Element and General Plan; if recommendations become formal policy without further review, said recommendations would be applied to developments which will occur in the near future, e.g. Catellus; seasoned planners should review the matter; there is no objection to sending the issue to the Housing Authority with a request that staff input be sought for evaluation purposes. Mayor Appezzato stated that he suggests the Housing Authority report back to the City Council and perhaps go to the Planning staff; Council will not implement anything without going to the Planning Board and Planning staff; the Housing Authority looks like the logical place to start; said Authority will not implement anything without reporting back to the Council and /or going through staff. Co -Chair Fujita stated the Committee would be happy to work within any areas which fall under certain authorities, in order to provide input as representatives of the Committee; the Committee is very flexible and would like to continue to provide input for the next 120 days pertaining to implementation. Mayor Appezzato stated the Housing Authority /Community Development Department is the largest group within the community; the Housing Commission is a solid group with experience; the Housing Authority has received accolades from all over the country. The City Manager suggested that staff review the matter for the next couple of weeks and provide Council with an interim plan and a longer term prospective at the December 1, 1998 Council Meeting. Mayor Appezzato stated the matter needs to be given to someone who can report back with concrete recommendations Councilmember Kerr stated the City Manager's' approach is a good one; that she would like to move forward; she is extremely impressed by the Report; the Report should be evaluated by looking at the City as a whole; several of the speakers tonight stated they wanted new housing for first- time `homebuyers in the developments coming up; there is a large number of starter stock in the City which should be considered in regard to homeownership; a balance should be achieved in the City as a whole; each new development should not be developed independently of surrounding neighborhoods. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there was a consensus of the City Council. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he understands Council is referring the Report to the City Manager who will report back to Council with recommendations. Monetha Hatcher, Committee Member, stated implementation should include consulting the Committee. Councilmember Daysog stated the Committee's input is critical. Councilmember Kerr concurred; stated that she is unsure what the difference is between suburban neighborhoods and traditional Alameda neighborhoods as noted in the Report; hence, there are a lot of ideas which need to be clarified by the Committee over the next 120 days. Mayor Appezzato stated the Report needs to receive staff attention which it demands. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved that Council refer the matter to the City Manager for a report back to Council very shortly. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Co-Chair Fujita stated that he was disappointed that a more definitive plan was not provided this evening; however, he understands that within two weeks the Committee may be asked to give input; the Committee is made up of the community and an extremely diverse group; the Committee worked very hard on the matter and wants to make sure recommendations/policy go through. Mayor Appezzato stated the recommendation is not very definitive; the Council is wrestling with defining the recommendation inorder to go forward; the [staff ]recommendation does not ask Council to do anything but create another committee, which delays going forward. Co-Chair Fujita stated perhaps the Committee was not specific enough for Council to take action at this time; the Committee does want to be involved and feels very strongly about the issue; in two weeks the Committee will be ready to help and assist in implementing some of the ideas. Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in support of sending the matter to the City Manager because various staff will be identified to provide ideas. Co-Chair Fujita stated the Committee will be able to clarify situations to provide great opportunity. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 Mayor Appezzato stated there are no more homes that will be built in Harbor Bay Isle; that except for a few vacant parcels around the City, the only home building will be done in the West End at the former Naval Station [Alameda Point] and at the FISC property; approximately 60% to 70% of the Naval Station is tidelands; homes cannot be built on tidelands; one third of the base is going to be open space for a wildlife refuge; the entire area of the base is a Redevelopment Area which means 15 %of the homes that are built will be set aside and 20% of the tax increment will be set aside; there are constraints to future home building in Alameda On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98 -619) Response to Alameda Grand Jury Recommendations 98 -35 & 98 -36. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated tape recording [Closed Session] Council Meetings is the best insurance the City has against nuisance litigation; [tapes] would be like a receipt for Closed Sessions; if there was a complaint Closed Session recordings would be proof positive of innocence; there should be solid support for tape recording. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of the City Manager's response to the Grand Jury. [Grand Jury Recommendation 98 -35 (regarding taping Closed Session), City Manager's response said recommendation not be implemented in Alameda; Recommendation 98 -36 (Adoption of a Conflict of Interest Code which forbids any employee who leaves the agency for any reason from representing any client during any negotiations or hearings with his/ her former governmental agency within one year, and also forbids any person from returning to the agency as an employee or consultant within one year), City Manager's Response: provisions of the conflict of interest code suggested by Recommendation 98 -36 are not required by State law.] Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Lucas thanked the City Attorney for her research of the law on the subject; requested the City Attorney to provide a copy of her [City Attorney's] legal opinion to Mr. Neveln. Mayor Appezzato stated the Brown Act is State law; the City complies with State law; and there has never been a question whether the City has followed State law regarding this matter. Councilmember Kerr stated that she has not seen a violation of the Brown Act in a Closed Session, the City Attorney has always been alert; Council discusses the City's strengths and vulnerabilities; tapes always seem to get out; that she does not want to put the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 City's legal vulnerabilities out in the, air. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (98- 620) Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Section 30 -2 (Definitions), Subsection 30 -4.10 (C -M, Commercial Manufacturing District), Subsection 30 -4.11 (M -1, - Intermediate Industrial Manufacturing District), Subsection 30 -4.12 (M -2, General Industrial Manufacturing District), Subsection 30 -7.6 (Schedule of Required Minimum Off - Street Parking Space), and by Adding Section 30.15 (Work /Live Studios) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations). Introduced. Joseph Wood, Attorney for Edward and Madlyn Murphy, stated that he submitted a letter [dated November 17, 1998] with the Murphy's position. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Mr. Wood is saying Council is in violation of the City Charter, to which Mr. Wood responded under the Constitutional provisions and the case law in his letter, alterations of the City Charter require a vote of the public. Mayor Appezzato requested the City Attorney to respond. The City Attorney, stated no one would debate the basic premise that alterations of the City Charter require a vote of the people, however, this [matter] is within the ;policy directive of the Council to decide whether or not to approve this type of use; Measure A, Section 26 -1 [of the City Charter] adopted in 1973, prohibits the building of multiple dwelling units in the City; [the proposed Ordinance] allows an ancillary use of a person sleeping in a commercial building; this is similar to a residential property where an ancillary home occupation permit is allowed; that she believes the decision of whether or not to allow this type of use [work /live studios] is within Council's policy directive. Councilmember Kerr stated the State of California defines ancillary use in industrial areas; it is not the City of Alameda's idea; the State has defined this as a non- dwelling use. The City Attorney agreed. Councilmember Lucas stated the ordinance will apply to existing buildings only; no buildings can be built; at the last meeting, Councilmember Kerr introduced the requirement of 2,000 square feet per unit to comply with the second Measure A [March 1991]. Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated CouncilmemberKerr's amendments [at the November 10, 1998 meeting] do not adequately address two story lofts; the square foot area could be more than the property area; Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 recognition of floor area ratio is important to consider; more complex rules are needed. Mark Wommack, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about putting exact limitations on square footage; Measure A was a good thing adopted to stop the destruction of single family homes within the historic community of Alameda, however, at the time of adoption no one was aware the Base would close and the northshore would change from commercial to residential; the proposed ordinance governs an area which is not residential; existing residential communities will not be seriously impacted; to put preconceived notions and limitations on how these buildings may be developed will foreclose opportunity; said matter should be evaluated by staff before decisions are made; urged Council not to place the type of limitations [in the proposed ordinance] on the development of work /live studios. David Thruston, Alameda, stated that he is concerned about the addition of the 2,000 square foot lot area for each of the units; the ordinance is well crafted and provides adequate safeguards for these developments to be within the confines of a work primary with live secondary; the 2,000 square foot requirement, in addition to the other limitations, will kill opportunities for the City to change some of these defunct properties into productive buildings. Mayor Appezzato stated Mr. Thruston may have a point; the original ordinance restrictions were greater than any other City; with the new 2,000 square foot [requirement], who knows. Wit Garfinkle, Alameda, asked the City Attorney whether members of the Council or Planning Board asked her for a recommendation regarding the size of the living versus working space to ensure ordinance would not conflict with Measure A. The City Attorney stated that she reviewed the ordinance as to form and the requirements of the Charter; that she did not speak with or attend the Planning Board meeting. Mr. Garfinkle inquired how the area which can be used as living space was determined. The City Attorney stated if Mr Garfinkle is asking whether members of the Planning Board and Council asked her to include the specific number [allowable living space area] in the ordinance, the answer is no. Mr. Garfinkle inquired whether the City Attorney could make a recommendation to the Council regarding said matter, to which the City Attorney stated making those types of recommendations is not her role; that she provides legal advice to the Council and Planning Board; she advised that the contents of the ordinance, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 including numbers, are: 1) legally correct, 2) correct under existing State law, and 3) correct under Measure A; as a policy matter, Council can choose other numbers, however, this is the recommendation from staff; under the Brown Act, Council cannot be contacted to ask their opinion [prior to public meetings], staff must present a recommendation [at the meeting]. Mr. Garfinkle asked Councilmember Kerr whether she favored or opposed the work/live project; to which Councilmember Kerr responded that she favors said project. In response to Mr. Garfinkle's further inquiry regarding whether a November 13th article in the Alameda Journal Newspaper quoting Councilmember Kerr as stating, "economic viability should not be a consideration of the Council" was accurate, Councilmember Kerr stated no; that she was surprised to read said quote; [reporter] Susan Fuller asked her [Councilmember Kerr] about density restrictions and she went into a discussion that the purpose of Measure A was to make it economically unviable to tear out Victorians and put up stucco boxes; the purpose of density restrictions is not necessarily the most profitable use of the piece of property. Mr. Garfinkle stated Councilmember Kerr's amendments [from November 10th meeting], in addition to restrictions in the original draft have resulted in an ordinance which make conversions impractical; inquired the point of hiring consultants, drafting proposals, receiving public input, and adopting a plan which, in his view, is unworkable; that he hopes [economic] viability would be considered an important aspect of the proposal. Councilmember Kerr agreed. Mr. Garfinkle inquired whether Councilmember Lucas and Vice Mayor DeWitt feared that an additional Hearing would permit any opposition to gather forces to fight the idea, to which Councilmember Lucas responded no, that is incorrect; that she believes the Assistant City Attorney's ruling at the last Council Meeting [November 10th] was incorrect; the Assistant City Attorney stated the matter would need to be scheduled for an additional meeting and she [Councilmember Lucas] stated that she did not agree with the recommendation; that she does not fear public input; that she appreciates public input; most of the time, something better comes out of the deliberation when there is public input. Mr. Garfinkle stated that hastily adopting the ordinance may create a problem; it is not advisable to proceed with the ordinance which is now proposed; the 2,000 square foot requirement for density makes this project unviable. Ben Garfinkle, Alameda, submitted a letter [dated November 17, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 1998] outlining his concerns regarding the 2,000 square foot restriction, the amount of living versus working space and the unobtainable parking requirements. Andrew McCormack, Alameda, urged Council to slow up on this matter; stated people want to live in Alameda because of the quality of not living on top of each other. Susan McCormack, Alameda, stated that she believes this [proposed Ordinance] skirts Measure A; the California Constitution requires a vote of the people to change any part of said Measure; Council is moving much too quickly; the Economic Development Commission has not reviewed the matter. Councilmember Kerr stated there is a misconception that a work/live building must be composed entirely of work/live studios which is not true; a 2,000 square foot lot area per work/live studio does not prevent the original zoning use from being continued in parts of the building; a mix of work/live studios and work places without living space is permitted; the statement that work/live studios would not impact residential areas must have come from someone not familiar with the estuary landscape; much of the [commercial] zoning along the northern waterfront is adjacent to residential zoning, the buildings use effects residential neighborhoods, that she proposed 2,000 square foot lot area per work/live unit because the voters twice approved that density concept, all of the commercial and industrial areas are not being rezoned--a possible use is being added, there are no income restrictions, useable floor area is not being restricted; if there is demand for the small 1,000 square foot units, all of the units allowed can be said size and the rest of the building could be commercially viable in non- work/live studio use; the idea is to increase the opportunities to use these buildings; existing uses are not being shut down. Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of effort has gone into drafting the ordinance to ensure precise language accommodates values of Measure A; that he is convinced Council should go slowly--it is about Measure A and concerns of the Economic Development Commission [November 10, 1998 meeting] regarding the balance of land uses; the first part of Measure A, Section 26-1, states "there shall be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda", it does not say there should be no multiple dwelling units built in the City of Alameda in residential areas, commercial areas or industrial areas; the work/live attempts to accomplish the building of a multiple dwelling unit; it is not allowing construction of a new building, however, it is substantial rehabilitation; substantial rehabilitation will be creating multiple dwelling units; [November 10th] amendments suggests tenuousness of this work/live ordinance; Council must consider whether the City has addressed Measure A in the amendments; that he believes the City should keep with the simplistic Measure A. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 Councilmember Lucas stated that she is convinced the ordinance is good, especially with Councilmember Kerr's amendments; that she will support it. Councilmember Kerr stated the Deputy City Attorney provided a letter [dated November 17, 1998] to Council which changed Section 30.15.5(q) and clarified the language on hazardous materials; moved introduction of the ordinance and the language furnished by the Deputy City Attorney for 30.15.5(q). Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion and stated the Negative Declaration must be accepted also. Councilmember Kerr agree to amend the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato stated that he would not repeat Councilmember Daysog's eloquent comments; economic viability is important; that he does not understand the rush; ordinance which went before the Planning Board was amended making it even more restrictive; the viability is questionable; the Economic Development Commission has asked for the opportunity to review the ordinance; Mr. Garfinkle would rather see this matter go to a vote of the people; all of these comments are valid; it is a great idea and may seem people will build [studios], however, with this ordinance, he is not sure it will happen; as much as he is for work/live studios, he has major concerns about rushing; if a building was lined up with people ready to go, he might see the need to go forward; that he will abstain because he does not think it [ordinance] is ready yet. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Kerr, and Lucas - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstentions: Mayor Appezzato - 1. (98-621) Ordinance No. 2779, "Reclassifying and Rezoning 1500, 1506, 1514, 1516 and 1518 Broadway Avenue, and 2607, 2609, 2611, 2613 and 2615 Santa Clara Avenue from R-4 (Neighborhood Residential Zoning) to R-5-PD (General Residential with a PD Planned Development Combining Zoning District) and Reclassifying and Rezoning 2617 and 2619 Santa Clara Avenue, 2618-2622 Janis Circle, and 2606 and 2610 St. Margaret Court from R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) to R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential/Planned Development Combining Zoning District)." Finally passed. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated Joseph Wood [Edward and Madlyn Murphy's attorney] submitted a letter regarding work/live studios [paragraph no. 98-620]; once again the Murphy's attorney is Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 writing a strongly legal letter discussing Measure A; no matter how accommodating the City has been, there will never be an end to letters from the Murphy's attorney. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (98-622) Ordinance No. 2780, "Adopting a Development Agreement between Edward and Madlyn Murphy and the City of Alameda, DA-97-02, for 1.2 Acres at the Northeast Corner of Broadway Avenue and Santa Clara Avenue to Retain the Uses and Standards of the R-5/P-D Zone for 25 Years. The Development Agreement Pertains to the Entire Site being Rezoned." Finally passed. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. (98-623) Ordinance No. 2781, "Granting Consent for a Proposed Merger of AT&T Corporation and Tele-communications, Inc., Parent of the Cable Television Franchise Holder, United Cable Television of Alameda." Finally passed. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment) (98-624) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated November 17, 1734 is the date that John Peter Zinger, a colonial printer and journalist, was arrested for libel against the Colonial Governor; Zinger's acquittal was an important early step toward the freedom of the press in America; everyone, especially elected officials, need to remember the importance of the First Amendment and freedom of the press. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council) (98-625) Consideration of Mayor's nomination of two (2) tenant members to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. Mayor Appezzato nominated/appointed Amanda Barbante and Claudia Widner. (98-626) Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like to compliment the City employee who reviewed the proposal from a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council November 17, 1998 telephone company to give the City pennies a year for use of a conduit across San Leandro channel; after negotiations by the employee, the City will get a lump sum of $120,000. Mayor Appezzato requested the City Manager to make a note in the individual's personnel file. (98 -627) Vice Mayor DeWitt stated Saturday, November 21st is Scouting for Food day; Boy Scouts will be gathering bags of food for those in need; people interested in donating can contact the Boy Scout Council or him to participate. (98 -628) Mayor Appezzato stated the grand opening of the Browman Project's Walgreens, Togos, Starbucks is this Saturday at noon; the project seems to be a success and it is well done. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 9:53 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 November 17, 1998