1986-02-04 Regular CC Minutes25
REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
HELD TUESDAY - --- - FEBRUARY 4, 1986
The regular meeting convened at 7:45 p.m. (at the conclusion of
Housing Authority meeting) with President Diament presiding. The
Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Corica. The Invocation
was given by Reverend Robert Keller, Twin Towers United Methodist
Church.
ROLL CALL: Present:
Absent:
MINUTES
Councilmembers Corica, Hanna, Lucas, Monsef and
President Diament - 5.
None.
Councilmember Hanna moved for approval of the minutes of December 17,
1985, and January 7, 1986. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lucas moved for adoption of the Consent Calendar with
the exception of Item 1-B (David Plummer, Chairman of the Historical
Advisory Commission, requested that the item, a report from Chairman
of the Historical Advisory Commission offering sincere thanks to the
Council, Public Works Director and staff for efforts to preserve
historic street lights and improving City street lighting, be
addressed under the Regular Agenda), Councilmember Hanna
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk (*).
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
*86-063 From Chairman of the Historical Advisory Commission
regarding the plans for the Masonic Temple. Accepted.
*86-064 From Planning Director regarding the revision of the Alameda
Housing Element. Accepted.
*86-065 From Public Works Director and Fire Chief submitting status
report on State-mandated Fire Safety and Exit Program, Title 24,
Article 7, of the California Administrative Code. Accepted.
RESOLUTIONS
*86-066 Resolution No. 10818 "Authorizing execution of agreement
with Pacific Gas and Electric Company for extension of gas services
for Marina Village Assessment District 84-3, Project #3, Marina
Village Parkway, Challenger Drive and Atlantic Avenue." Adopted.
*86-067 Resolution No. 10819 "Authorizing execution of an agreement
with Pacific Bell for extension of existing communication facilities
for Marina Village Assessment District 84-3, Project #3, Marina
Village Parkway, Challenger Drive and Atlantic Avenue." Adopted.
26.
*86 -068 Resolution No. 10820 "Approving the destruction of certain
City records, documents, and papers, pursuant to Section 34090 Et.
Seq. of the Government Code of the State of California." Adopted.
*86 -069 Resolution No. 10821 "Awarding contract to Gateway
Construction for renovation of the Krusi Park Tot Lot and
authorizing execution thereof." Adopted.
*86 -070 Resolution No. 10822 "Authorizing negotiation of an open
market agreement for installation of coin - operated light controllers
at Leydecker Park and allocation of funds from the Dwelling Unit Tax
Account to pay for said Project." Adopted.
*86 -071 Resolution No. 10823 "Authorizing submittal of an
application for a Career Criminal Apprehension Program, Grant to the
Office of Criminal Justice Planning, State of California, and
authorizing execution of a Grant Award." Adopted.
FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES
*86 -072 Ordinance No. 22711 N.S., "Authorizing Grant of Easement
for public utility purposes to the Bureau of Electricity, City of
Alameda. (Tidelands Easement) Adopted.
CLAIMS
*86 073 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as
correct, was approved in the amount of $1,170,338.69.
RETURN TO REGULAR AGENDA
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
86 -074 From Stella Lundby, 2031 Otis Drive, regarding bicycles and
skate boards on sidewalks.
President Diament suggested that the City's ordinance addressing the
subject be reviewed by the Traffic Advisory Committee.
Councilmember Corica made a motion to accept the written communication
and refer the matter, and Ms. Lundby's letter, to the Traffic
Adivisory Committee. Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
86 -075 From President of the Chamber of Commerce requesting an
interim loan up to the amount of $10,000.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated that the loan to the
Chamber of Commerce had not been approved at the December 17th Council
Meeting because of an improper vote.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion that the letter of credit be
granted to the Chamber of Commerce. President Diament stated that the
City Attorney had established the fact that she is able to vote on
the issue. Councilmember Hanna seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
86-076 From Margaret Cavanaugh, Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is,
requesting an opportunity to present the Council with a book entitled
"The Promise of World Peace."
Lisa Kendrick, a Baha'i Faith representative, presented the book to
the Council.
Councilmember Hanna made a notion, seconded by Councilmember Monsef,
to accept the communication. The notion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
86-077 From Irene Hanson, 1444 Benton Street, regarding downzoning.
President Diament stated that the subject of downzoning will be
discussed at a Work Session on February 6, 1986.
Councilmember Lucas made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Hanna, to
accept the communication; the motion carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
HEARINGS
86-078 A hearing to obtain citizens' comments on Housing and
Community Development needs.
President Diament explained the procedure for submitting proposals,
and opened the public portion of the hearing.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated that the City needs a
cemetery and jail.
Lois E. Pryor, representing H.O.P.E., requested that the City
continue to fund housing services at the present level, and provide
additional funds for senior citizen shared housing.
President Diament noted that the Social Service Human Relations Board
was making a similar suggestion, and closed the public portion of the
hearing.
Councilmember Lucas requested that staff look into the suggested
Senior Citizens' Project.
Councilmember Corica commented that he supported the idea, and
suggested that perhaps $750,000. could be set aside for the purchase
of a hotel or motel which would have kitchen facilities.
President Diament suggested that the Housing Authority explore the
idea.
Councilmember Lucas responded that such a program should include
provisions for the disabled also.
President Diament concluded the hearing by stating that proposals
should be submitted to the Community Development Department.
28.
APPEALS
86-079 Consideration of appeal of Planning Board decision to approve
Variance, V-85-49, at the lot north of 1813 Lafayette to construct a
single-family residence providing two tandem parking spaces each
8 x 17.5 feet where 9 x 20 feet and individually accessible spaces are
required; covering 45% of the lot where 40% is the maximum; and a
3-foot side yard setback where 4 feet is required. Appellant: George
N. Blackshere.
The Planning Director explained the material before Council and the
Planning Board's decision.
The City Attorney described the appeal process.
George Blackshere, 1E21 Lafayette Street, stated that any of the
neighbors had not been notified of the proposed construction project,
objected to the tandem parking variance and side yard setbacks.
Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated that the number of Appeals
before Council is growing, and that Planning Staff reports are not
complete.
Mr. Brando Ho, 11746 Shadow Drive, Dublin, stated that the side yard
setbacks do not effect the appellant's property, and that the tandem
parking is providing two more parking spaces to the neighborhood.
Councilmember Monsef inquired about the notification of neighbors.
The Planning Director responded that all notification requirements had
been met.
Councilmember Lucas noted that Planning Staff had recommended that the
variances for yard setbacks and lot coverage be denied.
Councilmember Hanna stated that he disagreed with finding no. 3
of the Planning Board's Resolution No. 1562, "the narrowness of the
lot creates a hardship in meeting setbacks and building coverage
requirements." Councilmember Hanna further stated that he did not
believe a narrow lot carries the right to build a very large house.
Councilmember Hanna made a motion to permit the tandem parking for
a normal house on a narrow lot and not approve the variances for the
side yards nor lot coverage. Councilmember Monsef seconded the
motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Hanna made a second motion to include the Planning
Board's conditions which are applicable to the variance approved
in the former motion; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Monsef
and carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
86-080 Consideration of appeal of Planning Board decision to
conditionally approve, without on-site parking and for delivery only,
Variance, V-85-52, to permit the operation of a takeout pizza
restaurant at 1708-B Lincoln Avenue providing no off-street parking
where 13 spaces are required. Appellant: Robert L. Jackson.
The Planning Director described the proposed operation and Planning
Board material.
GJ.
Councilmember Lucas expressed concern regarding double parking of
vehicles, particularly late at night.
The Planning Director responded that normally a C -1 operation would
require termination by 10 :00 p.m., unless an exception was granted to
the operation.
Councilmember Corica also expressed concern regarding double parking.
Robert Jackson, 1601 Minturn, stated that he filed the Appeal on
behalf of the residents in the area and with the residents' support.
Mr. Jackson submitted a petition signed by the residents. Mr. Jackson
described the parking problems in the neighborhood.
Ali G. Mahalatinia, 1708 -B Lincoln Ave., Latinia Pizza, stated that
the owners endeavored to locate off - street parking in the area, but
were unsuccessful. Mr. Mahalatinia further stated that the
residents and businesses at the location had very positive attitudes
concerning the operation, and referred to a letter from Pastor Robbins
of the Calvary Christian Church supporting the business. Mr.
Mahalatinia concluded by stating that parking will not be a problem.
Councilmember Corica stated that the business will not be able to
function without double parking. Councilmember Corica noted that when
Patton Way is created there will be increased traffic on Lincoln
Avenue.
In response to inquiry from Councilmember Hanna, the Public Works
Director stated that Phases I and II of Patton Way are scheduled to be
completed by December 31, 1986, and Phase III, if completely funded,
will be completed at the same time.
The City Manager explained that Phase III is the less complex phase,
and, if funded, will be completed by December 31, 1986.
Councilmember Lucas commented that it is unfortunate the commercial
district in question has no parking, and questioned whether such a
type of business should be located in a neighborhood - commercial
district. Councilmember Lucas stated that she believes the Variance
should be denied.
Councilmember Corica made a motion, seconded by Councilmember Lucas,
to deny the Variance. The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
86 -081 From City Manager concerning organization of Golf Course and
Recreation and Parks Management.
The following persons addressed the Council on the matter.
William McCall, 1105 Mound Street, requested that the matter be held
over so interested citizens could review the City Manager's report.
Robert W. Carlson, 130 Dahlia Drive, concurred with Mr. McCall.
Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, requested the Council to
defer any action regarding the Golf Course until the end of the fiscal
year. Mr. Tillman further requested a complete audit of the Golf
In response to Mr. Tillman's inquiry regarding Propositions 4 and 13,
the rii‘' Attorney advised Mr. Tillman that the propositions do not
have anything to do with the Enterprise Fund matter.
President Diament read guidelines from Governmental Accounting,
Auditing and Financial Reporting governing Enterprise Funds.
In response, Mr. Tillman referred the Council to the former Finance
Director's letter of August 21, 1980, which addressed the Enterprise
Fun,:3 .
Mr. Tillman stated that he would not object to funding the Finance
Department for an additional staff person who's responsibility would
be to keep records of the Golf Complex and furnish the Golf Commission
with monthly reports.
Bert Morgan, 301 Grand Street, voiced opposition to the creation of a
new position at the Golf Course.
Elmer Anderson, 1405 Union Street, requested that the Council not take
action until citizens can review the City Manager's recommendation.
Councilmember Corica stated that staff was requested to provide a
report which reflected the deletion of a staff person from the Golf
Course. Councilmember Corica stated that the facility is generating
close to a quarter of a million dollars per year, and does not see the
need for a change. Councilmember Corica added that the Golf Course
crew is responsible for the Golf Course's success, and a change is not
warranted.
Councilmember Monsef stated that as councilmembers they are
responsible for running the City operation effectively and
efficiently, and change is necessary to become more effective.
Councilmember Monsef added that an on -site administrator is required
to coordinate the efforts of all the groups which have made the Golf
Course what it is today.
Councilmember Corica reiterated that the Golf Course operation is a
success and does not need to be reorganized.
The City Manager stated that the issue is organization and not
necessarily people. The City Manager further stated that a full -time
on -site administrator at the Golf Course could add value to the
organization, because there is a need for coordinating the activities
of maintenance and the concessionaires. The City Manager reiterated
that what is recommended, on an interim basis, is the Assistant
Dil k.:i.ut of Recreation and Parks to be moved to the Golf Course; and
a clerical position, without a change in the funding of the position,
also be moved to the Golf Course. He further added that the net cost
of the Assistant Director to the Golf Course would be $10,000. The
City ilu"Qer noted that the only recommendation which effects Public
Works is that the buildings in the parks would be transferred to the
Public Works Department (structural maintenance).
�^ ^•� ^'� ^-'� ^r Hanna commented that an operation as complex as the
Golf Course deserves a dedicated manager. Councilmember Hanna
made a motion to accept the City Manager's recommendation, which
was seconded by Councilmember Lucas.
Under discussion, Councilmember Lucas stated that the cause for the
action taken on the subject is due to the success of the Golf Course.
Councilmember Lucas commented that the Golf Course has become a huge
operation which requires professional management.
President Diament explained that because of the tremendous
emotion and feeling about the matter in the community, she will vote
against the recommendation.
On the call for the vote, Councilmember Hanna's motion carried by the
following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Hanna, Lucas and Monsef - 3.
Noes: Councilmembers Corica and President Diament - 2. Absent:
None.
86-082 From City Manager recommending initiatives to continue
efforts to preserve a clean community.
Councilmember Corica made a motion to accept the report and
recommendation.
Harold Griego, 930 Park Street, urged the Council to impose a
surcharge on fast-food restaurants and oppose an increase in garbage
rates.
Linda Melvin, 934 Park Street, read a statement prepared by Mr. Ken
Melvin which suggested that the cost for pick up of litter generated
by takeout food and beverages be born by the vendors, that the
majority of the membership of the suggested committee be from
residential areas which are impacted most by the litter problem, and
a reassessment of the sources of funding be considered.
President Diament stated that the suggestions can be reviewed by the
committee. President Diament also proposed the consideration of a day
for pick up of household hazardous waste.
Councilmember Lucas stated that the litter ordinance should require
property owners to keep properties clean, and citations be given for
violations.
In response to inquiry from Councilmember Hanna, the City Manager
stated that if the curbside pickup is not absorbed by the Oakland
Scavenger Company, an increase of sixteen cents per month will be
charged.
Councilmember Monsef commented that the size of the committee is too
large, however, the term of the members should be increased to two
or three years.
President Diament stated that the committee can be broken down into
subcommittees with particular interests. President Diament further
commented that the East Bay Regional Park District and the Military
should be included in the project.
Councilmember Hanna seconded Councilmember Corica's motion to accept
the report and recommendation; the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
86-083 From Chairman of the Historical Advisory Commission offering
sincere thanks to the Council, Public Works Director and staff for
efforts to preserve historical street lights and improving City street
lighting.
Dave Plummer, 1401 High Street, Chairman, Historical Advisory
Commission, expressed his appreciation to Council and staff.
Councilmember Corica stated that he had noticed that the original 100
watt globes are being replaced with 70 watt globes in many cases and
believes that should be reviewed.
The City Manager said it would be reviewed; that the intent was that
the amount of lumin on the street be the same.
Councilmember Corica renarked that he believed the more light there
was on the street, the better it would be.
Councilmember Hanna commented that it appeared from what the City
Manager stated, that although the wattage was different, the
result was the same.
The Public Works Director explained that even though the wattage is
going down, the efficiency is greater and more light is put out.
Councilmember Corica said he was referring to the sodium vapor, the
yellow ones with 100 watts, which are being replaced with 70 watts.
The Public Works Director stated that it depended upon how wide the
streets were and how far apart the lights were placed; that 100 watts
or 70 watts should be used accordingly.
Councilmember Corica stated that his concern was for a well-lighted
city; that the more light, the safer he believed it would be; that at
one point lights were turned off and have never come back on because
the standards are no longer there and he would like as much wattage as
can be afforded.
A motion was made by Councilmember Lucas to accept the Report,
seconded by Councilmember Corica, and carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
RESOLUTIONS
86-084 Resolution No. 10824, "Supporting the return of sales tax
from the County to the City of Alameda."
Councilmember Corica moved, seconded by Councilmember Monsef, that the
resolution be adopted. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
33
86 -085 Resolution No. "Authorizing execution of agreement
with Arthur Young & Company for financial auditing services."
The City Auditor stated the Audit Selection Committee's recommendation
for an audit firm was based upon the Request for Proposal procedure
and an oral interview dealing with qualifications and benefits to the
City.
Councilmember Lucas mentioned that under New Business, she would be
requesting a draft ordinance regarding local preference in awarding
bids for goods and services, which would require written reasons as to
why a local business is not accepted. Councilmember Lucas further
stated that she understood Arthur Young & Company was a highly
qualified company, and she questioned whether the other firms were
considered to be not qualified.
The City Auditor responded that the other firms were less qualified
in experience.
Councilmember Lucas stated that she was concerned about the local
business, and special consideration should be given to local
businesses since the Council made such an effort to promote it and
expended taxpayers' funds to attract more business to the City.
Councilmember Lucas commented that she understood the local bidder had
audited other governmental agencies.
The City Auditor responded that the local auditing firm has worked for
other governmental agencies, and for one municipality in the last
five years (the City of Piedmont).
In response to inquiry from Councilmember Lucas, the City Auditor
stated that the local firm is currently auditing Alameda's School
District and other governmental agencies, and that their bid
was the lowest submitted.
Councilmember Monsef inquired if the Committee had contacted the City
of Piedmont to determine the performance of Kimbell, McKenna and von
Kaschnitz (local firm).
The Finance Director responded that the City of Piedmont had a
favorable response, however, both favorable and unfavorable
responses from other jurisdictions had been received.
Councilmember Monsef
the job, they should
Councilmember Corica
Lucas and Monsef.
stated that if
be awarded it.
stated that he
a local firm is qualified to do
concurred with both Councilmembers
Mr. Lofstrand stated that the Committee could only proceed on the
Request for Proposal and that McKenna's was inadequate. The hours
were half of everyone else; and the City was going to be a training
ground for their auditors.
34.
James McKenna, 2420 Santa Clara Ave, said that being low bidder and
being local would give them an oral interview and that he forced his
way in; that he has been a responsible citizen and has a firm known in
the whole East Bay.
In response to President Diament's question regarding the single audit
concept under federal law, Mr. McKenna assured Council that his
firm could handle it.
In response to Councilmember Hanna's question regarding the City
Auditor's comment concerning half as many hours as Arthur Young & Co.,
Mr. McKenna stated that Mr. Lofstrand (City Auditor) was correct
that they had not put their best foot forward, that it was a tactical
error on their part, that they attempted to look at last year's fees
and propose a rate accordingly.
Councilmember Lucas noted that the issue appeared to be the size of
the firm and the smaller budget size of the governmental agencies for
whom the firm had worked; then questioned if their clients included
large private firms.
Mr. McKenna pointed out that the firm worked for Alameda Unified
District, whose budget is $25 million.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' question, Mr. McKenna stated that
his billing to the School District was about $18- 19,000. and agreed
that the services required for the City would be on a larger scale;
that they have one client who is billed in excess of $100,000. and
four in the $60,000. range.
Councilmember Lucas requested that the City Attorney comment on who
selects the auditing firm- -the City Auditor or the City Council;
also the selection of the firm on the basis of low bid.
The City Attorney stated that the City Charter is not clear on this
issue; that the City Auditor is to provide the audit and therefore at
least implies that the Auditor would do it or pick the firm to do it.
The City Attorney further stated that the Charter then turns around
and requires the Council to let the contract, so certainly the Council
would have a great deal to say about the terms of the contract for an
audit; that the usual means of resolving statutory inconsistencies is
to work out some consistency. The City Attorney continued further,
that if, for purposes of illustration, Mr. Lofstrand decided to test
the Charter before the Superior Court (should the Council decide to
choose another audit firm) as a Judge, as a King Solomon, one might
say "a pox on both your houses ", you ought to work it out. If you are
going to force me to a decision, I am going to say, that primary
responsibility for picking the auditor is the City Auditor, but the
City Auditor must come up with somebody who's got a contract that will
satisfy the City Council; the City Council in turn, if it is not
going to go with the City Auditor ought to be sure that the firm it
goes with is competitive. The City Attorney added that the current
situation depends upon the facts as to whether right or wrong.
President Diament referred back to Councilmember Lucas' question to
which the City Attorney commented that Councilmember Lucas wanted
affirmation that agreeing to the lower figure is correct, but the City
Attorney stated that he does not believe it is that easy.
Councilmember Lucas questioned the possibility of whether or not an
Ordinance requiring preferential treatment for local business would
require compliance from the City Auditor, and whether or not an
Ordinance could be an interpretation of the City Charter.
The City Attorney explained that the City Charter would take
precedence over an Ordinance; that an Ordinance could be an
interpretation of the City Charter though it must be consistent with
the bidding laws which we do not have for this situation.
Councilmember Hanna noted that it was 11:00 p.m. and made a motion to
extend the meeting; Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Michael Gorman, 1318 Clinton Avenue, stated that he appeared as a
local businessman and urged the Council to support local business on
this issue; that regardless of any legal opinion, the Council should
make decisions that they believe are proper.
The City Attorney noted that it is essential to hire someone at least
as good as what the Auditor is recommending and not just on the basis
of local business.
Councilmember Corica commented that it appeared that Council must
decide who was the "lowest and best" and act accordingly.
President Diament commented she did not believe that was what the
Charter states.
The City Manager stated that he believed it important to note for the
benefit of the Council, that the staff does concur with the Auditor in
this case in the selection of the audit firm and would like the
opportunity to have the staff present to the Council their views upon
the matter. The City Manager continued, that in regard to local
business, the staff was torn between two issues: 1) a commitment to
promoting and improving local business environment and, 2) as
professional administrators in the public sector, a charge of
obligation of taking a businesslike approach in carrying out
responsibilities placed upon them.
President Diament asked if it were possible to send a request to
the City Auditor to reconsider.
Councilmember Lucas commented that the Council must work with the City
Auditor to come to an agreement according to the City Attorney's
comments.
President Diament stated that Council had indicated its beliefs.
The City Attorney noted that although we could say hypothetically
that, all other things being equal, local business could be hired; but
things are almost never equal, so introducing the local component,
there is also the danger of biasing the situation and misreading the
facts. The City Attorney stated that as a Judge his approach would be
to delay and see if there was anyway possible the matter could be
resolved [by Council and Auditor] before making any decision. The
city Attorney's counsel was to attempt to resolve it first.
The City Manager further elaborated on his comments, stating that
36.
�cA.6.+uuuends to the Council on any occasions and sometimes does
„c,t 'ra'e an adequate case for its position before the Council; that it
waq nr't »nusual.
Councilmember Lucas responded to the City Manager, stating that the
Council had no hesitation to overrule the staff. Councilmember Lucas
stated her concern was the legal position with the City Auditor who
has a right to select the auditing firm, therefore, the City Manager's
argument fails in this case. However, Lofstrand's argument stands,
and she requested that the President of Council try to settle the
iKCUP nn hehalf of the Council, with Mr. Lofstrand .
In response to President Diament's question as to whether the City
Auditor was willing to discuss the matter, Mr. Lofstrand indicated he
would get his committee together but appeared unsure there could be
much accomplished toward change.
Councilmember Monsef stated there would have to be a decision on this
because it is clear that the conclusion will be no change.
Mr. McKenna stated that he believes he had to contact people
individually because he felt the bias was present from the beginning.
Mr. McKenna added that comparing his firm to Arthur Young & Co.would
be like comparing Alameda Bank to Bank of America; the success of
Alameda Bank is the personal service.
President Diament commented that the problem is a legal one.
Mr. McKenna stated he didn't believe he would have a fair hearing with
the Committee, because he forced his way in on them.
Councilmember Hanna commented that there is constant discussion
concerning the support of local businesses , but he believes that it
seems the Council always makes it difficult for the businesses.
Councilmember Hanna further remarked that Council should try very hard
to assist those businesses, and that he would like the Mayor to meet
with the Committee about this matter and report back to Council.
It was the consenus of Council that the Mayor meet with the Audit
Committee.
INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
86 -086 Ordinance No. ,N.S., "Amending Measure "A" enabling ordinance
relating to rebuilding of destroyed structures."
Councilmember Corica stated that he initiated the proposed deletion to
the enabling ordinance that describes Measure "A" and that the City
Attorney nas given two different recommendations that can be used. He
referred to Section 11 of the enabling ordinance starting at Section
11 -443 where it says Exception, Destroyed Building. Councilmember
Corica further commented that Council had agreed that the reason for
cli,, ,idluent was to not create any penalty for persons who own a
house, apartment or multiple building which is destroyed by a
catastrophe. Councilmember Corica stated that the easiest way to
would be to eliminate the portion following ". . .and
_y.,.•.-1i' e or any part thereof may thereupon be rebuilt" and add
at that point: "but not to exceed the number of destroyed units of
record. "; That Section 11 -443 would simply say: "Exception Destroyed
37.
Building. A building permit may, notwithstanding the immediately
preceding section, be issued for the rebuilding of a destroyed
structure as defined in Section 11 -421G and said structure or any part
thereof may thereupon be rebuilt, but not to exceed the numbers of
destroyed units of record," and leave the rest as it is.
The City Attorney responded that would be the shorter version of the
two versions submitted to the Council. The City Attorney added that
the amendments had been discussed with the Planning staff, and there
were no objections.
Councilmember Lucas stated she would like to clarify (in view of the
City Attorney's distinction between the "as it exists" approach and
the "as regulated now" approach) where Councilmember Corica's proposal
would fall.
The City Attorney indicated that would be the "as is" approach.
Councilmember Lucas noted that it permitted a higher density than the
"as regulated now" approach if the building is destroyed.
The City Attorney noted that the first portion of the Section
previously discussed was designed to rebuild units to the current
zoning; that the problem with the downzoning is that it destroys the
effectiveness of that provision. The "as it exists" approach would
actually permit more reconstruction than the present approach does.
Councilmember Lucas stated that was her concern -- that it would be
giving people more than under the current reconstruction rule.
Councilmember Corica replied that adding the wording that it was "not
to exceed the number of destroyed units of record" was for the purpose
of not permitting the number of units to go beyond the regulated
units.
Councilmember Lucas noted that, if the example of the Tahoe Apartments
was used, the reconstruction ended up being fewer units than was their
original number of unit, the proposed version would permit the
reconstruction of all the original units.
Councilmember Corica replied that he believed that was the only way to
be completely fair, so that someone who lost something by an act of
God, or by fire, that they would not be penalized. It would be a show
of good will to the people of the community that the Council was not
trying to cause hardship, but that if something happens they could
return the structure to the same amount of units lost.
Councilmember Lucas stated that her concern was that Council would be
giving people more than they have under current reconstruction law,
that she doesn't see the need for it; that she prefers the approach of
decreasing the density.
Councilmember Monsef stated he liked Councilmember Corica's short form
but suggested that something be added regarding parking requirements
applicable to the site on 1/1/86.
Councilmember Corica stated the discussion was leaving the question of
fairness; that not allowing a person to rebuild as it was, would be
depriving them of income.
38.
Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, stated that the matter under discussion
affects him and his wife a great deal. He raised the question about
what would happen if a house on a 33 x 100 foot lot were destroyed.
The City Attorney assured Mr. Murphy that the discussion regarded
multiple units only.
Mr. Murphy stated also that if his fourplex stood on a lot and burned
down, he would prefer the "as exists "; that he is disturbed about the
persons who talk about parking, setbacks, etc. because people who work
hard are going to suffer and he has fears about what will happen.
Councilmember Corica stated that was his concern.
Councilmember Corica made a motion that the portion he described be
deleted and add "but not to exceed the number of destroyed units of
record ".
The City Attorney concurred but indicated that there should be some
inclusion of the fact that it still has to comply with the Building
Codes and all the other Codes, since that is State law.
Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion.
Councilmember Hanna abstained from voting because he would benefit
from the motion.
Councilmember Corica said there was no need to abstain from a vote on
an occurrence that required an act of God.
The City Attorney noted that it is not a conflict when someone is
impacted as any other citizen in a similar situation would be
impacted, although that does not mean that Councilmember Hanna is
required to vote.
President Diament called for a roll call vote.
Councilmember Corica's motion carried by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers Corica, Monsef and President Diament - 3.
Noes: Councilmember Lucas - 1.
Abstentions: Councilmember Hanna - 1.
Councilmember Hanna explained that he abstained because he has owned a
particular building for over 25 years and has known that it is a
nonconforming building; that if the building were totally destroyed
he could only rebuild 1 \3 of what presently exists. Councilmember
Hanna stated that is the Zoning Ordinance under which he has been
laboring for almost 26 years. Councilmember Hanna commented that now
comes an opportunity to revert to something easier of which he could
rebuild all the existing units, and believes it would be immoral to
vote for something which would improve his position that much.
Councilmember Lucas explained that she voted "no" because this
proposal gives a windfall to people that does not currently exist.
NEW BUSINESS
86 -087 Dave Plummer, 1401 High Street, Chairman of the Historical
Advisory Commission, requested that the four oak doors located on the
Ground Floor be preserved.
After Council discussion, the Public Works Director confirmed with
Council that he was to preserve the four oak doors downstairs, not the
trim and only on the Ground Floor.
86 -088 Councilmember Lucas requested the City Attorney to draft an
ordinance regarding preference to local businesses on purchases of
materials and supplies that would require written findings when a
local business -is not chosgii.
86 -089 Councilmember Lucas requested staff to provide 1985 crime
statistics within a block radius of the 1900 block of Webster Street.
86 -090 Councilmember Corica expressed concern that the Times Star
reported Grant Mainland's (Recreation & Parks Director) resignation
prior to the City Manager's communication.
The City Manager explained that he had conveyed to the Council the
resignation of Mr. Mainland in his report, prior to the newspaper
article, based upon Mr. Mainland's oral statements. The written
resignation had followed upon his return to work.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
86 -091 Councilmember Corica expressed concern about the disposition
of funds raised for the Golden Gate Challenge in the event $300,000.
is not raised and the City is not a sponsor.
President Diament stated that the fundraisers would determine the
disposition of the funds.
86 -092 The City Attorney announced that the case of Alameda v Wm.
Davey had been affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ADJOURNMENT
President Diament adjourned the Council meeting at 12:10 a.m. in
memory of the Challenger Shuttle astronauts.
Respectfully submitted,
Diane B. Felsch
City Clerk