1995-07-18 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL
JULY 18, 1995
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m., with Mayor Appezzato presiding.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember DeWitt. Reverend
Don Taylor, Central Baptist Church, gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, DeWitt, Lucas,
Vice Mayor Mannix and Mayor Appezzato -
5.
Absent: None.
PROCLAMATIONS AND SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY
(95-447) Presentation of Certificate of Service to Naomi L.
Hatkin, former member of the Historical Advisory Board.
Ms. Hatkin was unable to attend the Council meeting.
(95-448) Presentation of Certificate of Service to William M.
McCall, Sr., former member of the Public Utilities Board.
Mr. McCall, Alameda, accepted the Certificate of Service
and thanked the Mayor and City Council for the opportunity to
serve.
(95-449) Shirley Cummins, Alameda, stated that she would like
to present Don Roberts, host of the local cable program The Don
Roberts Show, with a symbolic award on behalf of viewers; that Mr.
Roberts had given insightful information for 7-1/2 years to the
community, and had done a crackerjack job; and Ms. Cummins
presented a box of crackerjack to Mr. Roberts.
CONSENT CALENDAR
President Appezzato announced that the following items were pulled
for public discussion: 4-B (95-462) [Report from City Manager
regarding 1995-96 Out-of-Town Travel]; 4-C (95-463) (Report from
City Clerk regarding Award of Contract for Legal Advertising for
Fiscal Year 1995-96]; 4-H (95-464) [Report from Public Works
Director recommending Award of Contract in the amount of $279,950
(Bid Amount Plus 10% Contingency) to Daylen, Inc., for Renovations
at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex, No. P.W. 1-95-02]; 4-K (95-465)
[Report from Public Works Director regarding Award of Recycling and
Waste Reduction Grants for Fiscal Year 1995-96]; and 4-0 (95-465)
[Filing of Affidavit of City Manager and Chief of Police Pursuant
Section 17-11 of the Charter of the City of Alameda].
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
33
Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk.
(*95-450) Minutes of Special Alameda City Council Meeting for
July 3, 1995. Approved.
(*95-451) Report from Finance Director transmitting Investment
Portfolio for period ending June 30, 1995. Accepted.
(*95-452) Report from Finance Director transmitting the Annual
City of Alameda Investment Policy for 1995-96. Accepted.
(*95-453) Report from Public Works Director recommending
Acceptance of Work by Sposetto Engineering, Inc. for Channelization
and Signalization Improvements at Atlantic Avenue and Main Street,
No. P.W. 05-94-11. Accepted.
(*95-454) Report from Public Works Director recommending Award
of Contract in the amount of $63,085 (Base Bid Plus 10%
Contingency) to McGuire & Hester for Drainage Improvements at the
Chuck Corica Golf Complex, P.W. 12-94-21. Accepted.
(*95-456) Report from Public Works Director recommending
Acceptance of Work by Harold Hutson Construction for Minor Street
Patching with Asphalt Concrete for Fiscal Year Ending June 30,
1995, No. P.W. 4-94-07. Accepted.
(*95-457) Report from Public Works Director recommending
Acceptance of Work by M. -F. Maher, Inc., for Repair of Portland
Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter and Driveway for Fiscal Year
Ending June 30, 1995, No. P.W. 4-94-06. Accepted.
(*95-458) Report from Community Development Director
recommending Authorizing Execution of the Associated Community
Action Program Joint Powers Authority Agreement. Accepted.
(*95-459) Resolution No. 12674 "Granting an Additional
Designated Period for Two Years Additional Service Credit."
Adopted.
(*95-460) Written Communication from Mike E. Neicoff,
Treasurer, Alameda Coin Club, requesting approval to use the Seal
of the City of Alameda on one side of the Club's proposed issuance
of wooden rounds. Accepted.
(*95-461) Bills, certified by the City Manager to be true and
correct, were ratified in the sum of $1,763,526.93. Approved.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
9
(95-462) Report from City Manager regarding 1995-96 Out-of-
Town Travel. Accepted.
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that in a time of crisis, when
citizens cannot get City services on Friday, every General Fund
item in the report should be deferred until the City is in a better
position.
Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the report; that he would
like the City Council to send strong criticism regarding travel
that is not necessary and does not benefit the citizens of Alameda;
that the Bureau of Electricity's travel budget makes up almost
$33,000 [of the out of town travel budget]; that he would like to
Bureau's Travel Budget to be reduced to $26,750, e.g. Management &
Power Resources Budget; and that the City Manager reduce the City's
Departments' Travel Budget to $74,000.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(95-463) Report from City Clerk regarding Award of Contract
for Legal Advertising for Fiscal Year 1995-96. Awarded.
The City Clerk stated, for the record, that the Alameda Times Star
Newspaper filed a Bid Protest and requested continuation of the
matter for two weeks; and that the Alameda Journal Newspaper filed
a Bid Protest.
The City Attorney, Carol Korade, provided the City Council with a
brief overview of the required legal procedures in order to
properly hear the bid protests.
President Appezzato opened the public portion of the hearing.
The following persons addressed the City Council:
Earl Peacock, Alameda, addressed the City Council in support of the
Alameda Journal, the low bidder.
Kate Freeland, San Francisco, Attorney for the Alameda Journal,
stated that she concurred with the City Attorney that both bid
protests be sustained and that the bid be awarded in accordance to
the Government Code.
Cliff Benson, Alameda Journal, reviewed circulation figures of both
newspapers, and explained independent audit and readership survey.
John Scott Graham, Alameda, addressed the City Council in support
of the Alameda Journal.
Regular Meeting, Alameda Ciry Council
July 18, 1995
9
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he supports the City Attorney's
recommendations; that the City Attorney's findings were accurate;
that he agreed that both bid protests should be accepted; and that,
in his opinion, there was no question that Council should award the
contract to the Alameda Journal.
Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Lucas moved that both Bid Protests be sustained; that
the award [of contract] be to the Alameda Journal; that the Alameda
Journal had the widest distribution, offered the lowest cost, [and
is] the best deal for the Alameda taxpayer; and adopted Resolution
No. 12675.
Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that the problem needed to be resolved.
President Appezzato requested the City Attorney to report back to
the City Council with a recommendation for a Charter Amendment for
the next ballot.
The motion [award of contract for legal advertising to Alameda
Journal] carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-464) Report from Public Works Director recommending Award
of Contract in the amount of $279,950 (Bid Amount Plus 10%
Contingency) to Daylen, Inc., for Renovations at the Chuck Corica
Golf Complex, No. P.W. 1-95-02. Accepted.
Councilman Arnerich moved that Council recommend the work be done
and that the fifteenth tee of the Earl Fry Course be re-bid.
Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(95-465) Report from Public Works Director regarding Award of
Recycling and Waste Reduction Grants for Fiscal Year 1995-96.
Accepted.
Councilmember Lucas discussed Jean Follrath's letter regarding
Waste Management Recycling Grants, and stated that she would like
the issues that were raised, addressed when the Recycling Contract
expires in 1996.
Councilmember Lucas moved acceptance of the report. Councilman
Arnerich seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote
- 5.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
226
(95-466) Filing of Affidavit of City Manager and Chief of
Police Pursuant Section 17-11 of the Charter of the City of
Alameda. Filed.
Earl Peacock, Alameda, addressed the City Council regarding amount
of annual funding.
In response to Mr. Peacock's inquiry, the City Manager stated that
the annual fund was approximately $2,000 to $4,000.
Councilman Arnerich moved that the Affidavit be filed. Vice Mayor
Mannix seconded the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(95-467) Presentation by AC Transit regarding Financial Status
and Proposed Service Adjustments; and Report from Public Works
Director regarding proposed AC Transit reductions.
Alice Creason, AC Transit Agency Director, introduced Matt
Williams, AC Transit Director; Kay Van Sickel, Assistant General
Manager; and Francoise Njike, Transportation Planner; stated that
information was distributed to the Council and members of the
public; that in order to balance AC Transit's budget, the service
level must be reduced;.that a number of proposals had been reviewed
by the Board of Directors, although none had been agreed to; that
the Board was looking at various ways to reduce the costs; that due
to most of the costs being directly related to the service level,
the Board was trying to cut services in the most productive way;
that the Board wants to keep as many riders as possible and
continue to service the community; that the Board was eager to work
with the Council and City staff regarding possible options; that
all the proposed reductions would not go into effect, but that
there would be many reductions; that public policy was not
currently supporting bus service operations; that AC Transit was
impacted by many other policy-makers; that the particular service
that buses provide does not seem to be as highly valued as some
capital projects which are occurring in the region and throughout
the Nation; that AC Transit would do their best and look to the
City's ideas and assistance; that AC Transit wants to work with the
City of Alameda to make sure that Alameda's needs are being met;
that AC Transit would be conducting a Community Workshop on
Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., in the Alameda High School
Little Theater; that many people's lives will be directly impacted
by the reductions; that AC Transit had encouraged people to use
public transit because it is good for the quality of life, air and
the economy; and that marketing efforts were being reviewed to
increase the current number of riders and revenue from ridership.
Regular Meeting, Alain& la City Council
July 18, 1995
r".„'4 •ri
)
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding the Director
of Public Work's recommendation, Ms. Creason stated that she had
reviewed said recommendation and would forward on to transportation
planners who would attempt to accommodate Alameda's needs; that no
guarantees could be given due to the district's size and that the
Board was looking at the broader-based picture; that the Board will
try to meet Alameda's concerns or come up with alternatives; and
that the Board will work with City staff.
In response to Vice Mayor Mannix's inquiry regarding administrative
costs, Ms. Creason stated that reduction in administrative costs
were being considered; that she believed the public expected such;
that a number of reductions had been made in the past; that
payments had not been made towards the retirement fund; that
incremental increases and salaries were delayed over the years;
that things can only be put off for so long and that AC Transit's
revenue and expense bases have flattened out due to some of the
historic increases not coming into the Agency; that a pullback from
the Federal Government was affecting the Agency, along with
additional mandates which the Agency is required to meet; that the
Agency has more responsibilities and requirements to the public,
but without money to fund such, which is creating a hardship.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's inquiry regarding mini-
vans/buses being used during off-peak hours, Ms. Creason stated
that it was a misconception that the smaller buses were more
economical; that the smaller buses were not built to the standards
of the larger buses so that the wear and tear tends to break them
down; and that she was in support of smaller buses during off-peak
hours.
David I. Tam, Rescue AC Transit Committee, Berkeley, submitted a
document entitled, "Don't Eliminate Life-Line "L" Service", which
identified three possible strategies; expressed concerns; and
suggested that concerned citizens contact him at 729-7752 for the
location of the Committee's next meeting scheduled for Monday, July
24th at 2:00 p.m.
John Scott Graham, Alameda, stated that AC Transit Agency was a
failure and should be reorganized; expressed concerns of current
riders, and made suggestions for increased ridership.
Gerhard Degemann, Alameda, addressed the City Council regarding AC
Transit's intended cost-reduction strategies and amount of
allocation for out-of-town travel.
In response to Mr. Degemann's inquiries, Councilman Arnerich stated
that AC Transit would be holding a public hearing to address such
matters and suggested that Mr. Degemann make his inquiries known at
the hearing.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
2S
Matt Williams, AC Transit Director, stated that the meeting
scheduled for Thursday was not a public hearing but rather an
informational meeting to find out what the public is looking for;
provided background information regarding the Federal Government's
reduction in operating assistance monies to bus operators nation-
wide, including the repercussions; and referred to a 1994 article
in the California Journal entitled, "Nightmare in Los Angeles".
In response to Mr. Degemann's inquiries, Ms. Creason stated that
the requested figures would be provided at the informational
meeting scheduled for Thursday, July 20, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., in the
Alameda High School Little Theater.
Councilmember DeWitt moved acceptance of information [presented by
AC Transit] and staff's recommendation that a letter be sent to AC
Transit which states the City's position regarding proposed
changes. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-468) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance
Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties within the City of
Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277 for the Property
Located at 2317 Central Avenue.
President Appezzato opened the public portion of the public
hearing.
Due to no speakers, President Appezzato closed the public portion
of the public hearing.
At the request of Councilmember DeWitt, the Planning Director
provided an overview of the process involving the Alameda Theater.
In response to Councilman Arnerich's inquiry, the Planning Director
stated that the Planned Development application is to remove the
existing brown-metal fascia that has been added over the marquee,
to restore the original band underneath and to renovate the sign;
and further stated that the marquee will remain.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding staff being
responsible for delays in the project, the Planning Director stated
that staff had not delayed the project.
Councilman Arnerich moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Council recessed at 9:08 p.m. and reconvened at 9:21 p.m.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
(95-469) Report from Assistant City Manager transmitting Maze
& Associates Golf Complex Management Audit; and Report from Golf
Commission regarding Golf Complex Management Audit.
Ed Trevethan, Golf Commission Member, stated that he does not
believe the audit complies with the Request for Proposal which
requested a review of all organizational and operational aspects of
the management of the Golf Complex; that he recommends the audit
not be adopted by the City Council, with exception of Items 3 and
4, as stated in the Golf Commission's letter dated July 6, 1995.
Cal Santare, Golf Commission Member, stated that the audit was
requested due to people-related problems; that morale is low;
starters at the Golf Course barely get minimum wage; Golf
Commissioners are always available at the Golf Course; that when
the Commission reports to staff, it is told it is a Personnel
concern; that the Commission does not know who is boss; a
Commissioner requested former Mayor Withrow for an audit; and that
staff was aware of the situation, however, the Request for
Proposals did not mention the problems.
Fred W. Leitz, Golf Commission Member, stated that the management
audit was requested due to numerous complaints about the management
of the Golf Complex; the audit did not mention any of the issues;
the RFP never reached Commission Members until the audit was
completed; and that the audit was manipulated to express the views
of management and disregard the views of those who were critical.
Kay Takeoka, Alameda, stated that morale at the Golf Course is at
its lowest ebb.
The City Auditor stated that the matter appears to be a political
power play; that Maze and Associates was hired to look at the
business and come up with recommendations to make it better; and
that he concurs with the items that the Golf Commission
recommended, particularly regarding the Golf Pro.
Don Roberts, Alameda, stated that he was appalled that the draft
RFP was not provided to the Golf Commission.
President Appezzato stated that the Commission is appointed by the
City Council; it is advisory to the City Council; and the
Commission has access to the City Council.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding the Request
for Proposals, the Assistant City Manager stated that on October
18, 1994, the Council directed staff to develop a RFP that included
information similar to that which was contained in the report to
the Council, and authorized staff to seek proposals; and that he
developed the Request for Proposals.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
240
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding the
exclusion of the examination of management personnel from the RFP,
the Assistant City Manager referred to, and commented on, the
August 16, 1994, City Council Meeting Minutes, [Paragraph No. 94-
481] regarding an operations audit; he stated that the scope of
service for the contract with Maze and Associates was provided
under that discussion and sent to the Golf Commission; and that the
RFP was not because he felt he was directed by the Council to put
one together.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding whether or
not Maze & Associates should have addressed morale and turnover,
the Assistant City Manager stated that turnover maybe; and that
morale was an issue discussed by a number of people with Maze and
Associates after scope of service had already been determined.
Councilman Arnerich stated that he will ask at the end [of the
discussion] that Council receive, not accept, the Maze and
Associates report; that he disagrees with the City Auditor's
comments; and that he [Arnerich] believes the report was biased and
slanted.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that the management audit is not detailed
enough; he would like to see the City Manager and Assistant City
Manager address some of the management concerns raised; that the
arrangement with the Golf Pro be clarified; that the issues raised
in the Golf Commission's report looked at; that the chain of
command at the Golf Course clearly defined; that the individual who
runs the operation as a business be the boss; and the role of Golf
Commissioners understood.
Mr. Maze, Maze and Associates, stated their role was set out in the
memorandum provided to the City Council by the Assistant City
Manager on January 26th,; that Maze and Associates was not
requested to look at personnel, personalities nor politics; and
that management was perceived to be a structure to return the
greatest profit to the City.
In response to Councilman Arnerich, Mr. Maze stated that Mr.
O'Connell, interviewer of numerous golf personnel, did not respond
to questions at a Golf Commission Meeting because: 1) he is not a
Partner of Maze and Associates, and 2) he was in poor health that
evening.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that perhaps the RFP process was flawed
and did not articulate what was expected.
Mr. Maze stated that Maze and Associates worked closely with staff;
they tried to reach out as far as possible; that their
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
recommendations, if implemented, will solve the morale problem; and
that a good operating structure and a strong manager is needed at
the Course.
Councilmember Lucas stated that Council looks to their advisory
commissions for advice; the Golf Commission states the report is
unsatisfactory; something failed along the way; and that Council
needs to go back to the Commission for where the research needs to
be done.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that it appears the Golf Commissioners
had a hand in requesting the audit; it also appears that the
Commissioners know what the problems are and have answers to some
of them; complaints are primarily about management; and that he
believes the City Manager needs to come back to Council with
recommendations for, and solutions to, the problems.
President Appezzato stated that he does have confidence in the Golf
Commission; that he would like the Commission to consider expanding
their role or the number of people on the Commission; and that he
agrees with his colleagues that the City Manager has to come back
with recommended solutions on the operation of the Golf Course
Complex.
Councilman Arnerich moved that the Council receive the Maze &
Associates Report, turn it over to the City Manager for a 30 to 60
day review, and report back.
Councilmember Lucas stated that she would like the City Manager's
recommendations to go to the Golf Commission first.
Councilman Arnerich responded that Councilmember Lucas made a good
point, and amended his motion.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. The motion carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95-470) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing Execution of
Tidelands Lease Between Pacific Shops, Inc. and the City of
Alameda.
Don Roberts, Alameda, gave an overview of the lease's terms and
conditions; and suggested that Council reject the lease and request
staff to demand an increase in rent monies.
Councilman Arnerich gave an overview of the lease's various phases
since 1970, and stated that the current Council had increased
monies received from Pacific Shops by five-fold.
President Appezzato reviewed the 1917 Tidelands Lease Act; stated
that he opposed the Ordinance; that monies to be paid by Pacific
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
Shops, Inc. was unacceptably low; suggested that Council direct the
City Attorney to secure an easement on property owned in fee by
Pacific Shops; and spoke in support of extending Pacific Shop's
lease until the City Attorney secures the easement.
Councilmember DeWitt expressed concerns relative to the pole yard;
and stated that more information was necessary regarding value of
property, access to the land, and the pole yard.
Following discussion, the City Manager stated that it was Council's
responsibility to determine if the City is getting proper
compensation for the property; that it was difficult to compare
properties that have access to the street or utilities vs.
properties that do not; that said property would not have utilities
if the City was to take it over because the utilities are currently
running under the fee-owned property by Pacific Shops; and informed
Council of the various improvements made to the property by Pacific
Shops: maintenance, utilities, insurance, lighting, and security.
Discussion was held regarding difficulty in obtaining access and
related costs, e.g. litigation.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that access to the land was a definite
issue which should be addressed in 2015; that he was not prepared
to spend money to obtain access by legal action; expressed concern
relative to if the City takes the land over and what the City is
going to do with it; and further stated that Council should proceed
with the matter.
President Appezzato stated that the value of the property increases
significantly if the property has an easement.
Councilmember Lucas concurred with Vice Mayor Mannix and expressed
concern regarding litigating for access.
Vice Mayor Mannix moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion which failed by the
following voice vote due to lack of four affirmative votes: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Lucas and Vice Mayor Mannix - 3. Noes:
Councilmember DeWitt and President Appezzato - 2. Absent: None.
President Appezzato suggested that the City Manager approach
Pacific Shops, Inc. regarding access to the property.
Council recessed at 11:05 p.m. and reconvened at 11:15 p.m.
(95-471) Report from Special Investigator, John T. Trumbo,
Reviewing Building and Planning Permit Procedures for Residential
Development at 1574 Pacific Avenue and the Planning Board's
Recommendations Regarding the Matter.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
243
Gary Thomas, President, Planning board, addressed the City Council;
gave an overview of the residential development at 1574 Pacific
Avenue; stated that in January 1989, said project was proposed as
a two-story duplex at the rear; that in January 1990 said project
was disapproved because of parking and setbacks; that in October
1990, said project was resubmitted in a different forum to be a
two-story, two bedroom in the rear, and a two bedroom unit under an
existing three-bedroom unit, which was approved in November 1990;
that a public hearing was held for the initial submittal; that no
public hearing was held for the re-submittal; that complaints from
the neighborhood and residents occurred due to the manner in which
the matter was handled; that said complaints caused Council to take
action and request the Planning Board to conduct an investigation
and report back to Council; reviewed how the investigator was
selected; stated that an investigator was suggested by the
neighborhood group; that an investigator was also suggested by the
Planning Department; that the Planning Board believed that the
selection of either one of the investigators would not have
resulted in an independent investigation that would have pleased
both groups; that a Boardmember recommended Mr. Trumbo, which the
Planning Board approved; that the Boardmember who recommended Mr.
Trumbo excused himself from all deliberations so that he would not
create a conflict; that the Planning Board had extensive public
hearings to receive comment; that the Planning Board made
recommendations which were provided to Council; that the Planning
Board recommended two variances be sought: 1) for the encroachment
of the stairs and to a required front yard, and 2) for a bay window
that was not properly done in the rear of the second unit; that the
Planning Board had extensive testimony and discussion regarding the
lifting of the building, and putting the unit underneath the lifted
building and in front of the property; that the Planning Board
determined that the action taken was consistent with all the
actions that had been done in the past and approved by the Planning
Board, including the approval of the side-yard encroachment; that
the Planning Board also looked at parking which was an issue and,
again, after much testimony and discussion the Planning Board
determined that the parking was legal, although, we did not agree
it was adequate; that there are two different points, but the
Planning Board believed the parking to be legal; that the Planning
Board determined it would take the comments received and make sure
that this input was addressed in the new Planning Development Code
in an effort to eliminate or avoid this sort of problem in the
future; that the Planning Board has taken a new look at projects
that have come forward subsequent to this project, and of a similar
nature, to try and ensure that the concerns are addressed and that
the City is getting a quality project; that there are a lot of good
people involved on both sides of the matter; that the people have
all come forward on many occasions and provided their opinion; that
they have all respected each other's opinion; that everyone had
been provided the opportunity to speak and have been fairly
listened to; that the Planning Board unanimously felt that there
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
244
was no objective to do anything wrong, but that there were errors
in judgement, which probably occurred in applying past practices;
that there was a lack of communication through this process which
the Planning Board felt lead to a lot of suspicion and mistrust,
and it progressed to the point where opinions and judgements got
hardened and very difficult to change one way or the other; that
there will be differences in opinion expressed about some of the
findings of the Planning Board with regards to consistency and past
practices and whether a variance or an encroachment is legal or
not; that it is the Planning Board's belief, and his personally,
that it is time to bring closure to this matter; and that there is
no solution or decision that will be made that will completely
satisfy everyone's requirements regarding this matter.
John T. Trumbo, Special Investigator, stated that he was contacted
by the former President of the Planning Board, Bruce McGregor, to
submit a resume to be considered to assist in the description of
the various and existing problems regarding 1574 Pacific Avenue;
that in an effort to discover what the administrative requirements
were, what the followed procedures were, and the technical results
of those efforts; he reviewed City files that were provided by
staff, interviewed neighbors, interviewed the owner, interviewed
other interested parties related to this problem who contributed
information or regulatory authority, and concluded with a report
submitted to the Council; that he would summarize the concerns of
many neighbors, the quality of administrative service by the City,
and conclusions for recommendation; that judgements were made by
the Building and Planning Departments which were somewhat outside
the regulations, but not illegal in any way; that no codes or
policy-makers can describe every condition that must be considered;
that the City's regulators must make judgements between the lines
of both the Uniform Building Code or relevant administrative codes
such as the adopted Zoning Code; that he feels upon review and
interview with the people that were involved in providing services
in the City, that administrators provided the best effort and
compliant judgements with the regulations that they were obliged to
follow; that in his opinion, said project was not being argued
exactly on its merits; that he believes people objected to the
project for reasons that are somewhat at odds with the technical
arguments which are being raised; that the side-yard and front-yard
setback issues are relatively minor to what, in his view, are Much
larger issues that occurred at the beginning of said project
regarding public notice, and the perception that many people held
regarding this project being essentially no different than the one
that was rejected on a prior application; that Council has heard
the detail of how one project is different than another, which, in
his opinion, was not a satisfactory explanation to many people;
that questions have been raised about City administration in the
design and building phases; that some of the technical
inconsistencies with the required drawings have been remedied,
which means that there were violations; that the applicant on this
Regular Mecthig, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
project submitted a set of drawings and in some ways did not comply
with those requirements; that in some ways, that non-compliance is
minor, and in several ways encouraged or was complicit with City
staff; that many of those inconsistencies have now been cleared up
between the Planning and Building Departments; that not all
building inspectors were familiar with the implications of making
a Building Department change, or that things they are used to
making had any consequences for Planning decisions, which caused
some problems with the bedroom configurations and parking; that it
has been reported to him that since these decisions were made
concerning this project, that improved communications are now
required between the Building and Planning Departments; that he had
not investigated any other projects that would indicate that is
either true or untrue; that it was satisfactory to hear the
intention because they recognized that there was a problem; that
there are several issues that are involved in the setback, in the
encroachment and side yards, and the adequacy of the parking; that
one of the critical issues has to do with the policy of allowing
pre-existing non-complying conditions to continue and to base
approvals on the required parking on ordinances that allow a
liberal amount of expansion to a building and carrying with it its
pre-existing parking condition; that the recommendations and
conclusions provided by him can offer guidance to reconsidering
some of the interpretations, by tradition, that have been made by
the Planning and Building Departments; that the explicit language
in the Zoning Ordinance should also be reconsidered; that the
property's administrative process was largely consistent with the
way the law was written; that one of the issues before Council is
to consider the immediate issue of resolving the conflicts that
this project presents to the existing ordinance; and that the
larger issue is how this ordinance might be resolved and procedures
to improve the communication and to limit the kind of development,
if Council chooses, that seems to be liberally allowed by the
language as it currently exists.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding unresponsive
and careless property owners, Mr. Trumbo stated that communication
between the applicant and those concerned about development needs
to take place at the beginning of the project; and further stated
that the City's mechanism to provide that communication is written
into the ordinance, but whether or not said communication takes
place is primarily at the judgement and discretion of the Planning
Director; that at the time this project was reviewed, a judgement
was made that there was insufficient criteria to review the project
in that it did not violate any existing ordinance; that there is
one line in the ordinance that would have allowed the Director to
make a judgement that this project "was of significant public
interest" as demonstrated by the prior project submitted and
rejected; that a question is raised, on the other hand, by the
Department, by which criteria will this project be judged in the
public hearing if there are no violations of the zoning ordinance
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
24 6
to consider; that that would appear not to be adequate because
people's views need to be heard; that there may be a way of
rewriting the ordinance or revising it where extending pre-existing
conditions is limited, e.g. driveway width, length, extension of a
second story, definition of requirement of parking being allowed in
a building that has doubled in size; that previously stated are
significant effects on said project that were allowed by judgment
and the ordinance; and that the first recommendation is to insist
on prior dialogue for all projects, either formally or informally.
President Appezzato stated that it was unfortunate that people did
not consider the duties and obligations that go along with rights
and privileges.
Brock Grunt, Save Pacific Avenue, Alameda, stated that he observed
positive and negative changes occurring in his neighborhood, and
that the negative changes were the responsibility of the property
owner at 1574 Pacific Avenue; that except for the previously-stated
address, neighbors care about the area; that the negative changes
appear to be irreversible; that no forethought was given in the
design; that while in attendance at a Planning Board meeting, the
excuse was given more than once that the building was not the
worst-looking building on the block; stated that he thought that
was a poor excuse and poor way to explain away a City-financed
structure; that he contemplated his rights as a property owner and
that of his neighbor; that said property owner has a postage-stamp
size front yard that has weeds growing up to 18 inches high; that
rocks were placed in an attempt to make the yard maintenance free;
and that the yard was not maintained, and that little effort would
be required to do so.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding the property
owner taking a more active interest in maintaining said property
and its appearance, Mr. Grunt stated that the property owner's
efforts would help satisfy the neighbors; and further stated that
the property owner's attorney addressed the neighbors, not the
owner.
Stevon Schwartz, Save Pacific Avenue, Alameda, stated that in 1990,
the Zoning Administrator decided, after a public meeting, that the
reconstruction project at 1574 Pacific was too big for the site and
would create a nuisance for the neighborhood; that no one had ever
denied that the project was then secretly approved by one City
staff person; that months ago when the Council authorized an
investigation on said property, the people on Pacific Avenue were
promised an investigator that the neighborhood would be happy with
and could trust, but, instead got Mr. Trumbo; that it appears that
the Planning Board was afraid of a real investigation; questioned
whether the property was remodeled or reconstructed; stated that he
observed said property, a two-bedroom house, raised 15 feet in the
air, held on big beams while the old cement was jack-hammered out
Regular MccAirtg, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
247
and a new slab and foundation poured; that the first floor was
completely re-framed and expanded to three bedrooms; that every
2x4, nail and wire put in was new; that a completely new two
bedroom building was then put in the back; that said project
appeared to be more in the line of major reconstruction, rather
than remodeling; suggested that the City purchase the property,
tear the property down, and design a "quality" project that
enhances the neighborhood; and that the project be referred back to
the Planning Board for a public hearing.
Eve Roberson, Save Pacific Avenue, Alameda, requested that Council
refer the entire 1574 Pacific Avenue matter back to the Planning
Board for reasons outlined in letters and in testimony given over
the past nine months; stated that the neighbors had remained
steadfast due to the importance of the matter; that it was a matter
of major investment for the neighbors, e.g. their homes where they
live and where they raise their children; that she was pleased to
read in yesterday's Times Star that Vice Mayor Mannix agrees that
"The quality of life is the biggest issue facing Alamedians."; that
that is the issue before Council tonight; that Mr. Tayag's
investment seemed to be a "cash cow" investment that gives him a
guaranteed monthly income while spending little or nothing on its
maintenance; thanked Council for Mr. Trumbo's report, and stated
that the neighbors believe the report was seriously biased from the
beginning due to following reasons: 1) Mr. Trumbo interviewed 12
persons in support of the project and 4 in opposition, 2) Mr.
Trumbo did not interview the person, still on Planning Board staff,
who approved the project in 1990, and 3) Mr. Trumbo was confused
about the actual distance from the house to the street; that there
was no confusion and said property is closer to the street than
most all the other homes on the block; that Mr. Self is also
confused about distances when he implied that her "illegal four-
plex across the street is as close to the street as Mr. Tayag's";
that the fact is that her front yard is more than twice as deep as
Mr. Tayag; that his front building is also a non-conforming
building that was illegally reconstructed too close to the house
next-door; referred to a letter written by Mr. Manibusan, owner of
the home next-door, who was too kind to mention in his letter that
the front two-story building at 1574 Pacific now has bedrooms that
look into his dining room and are almost within arms length of it,
and that his air space and view have been totally obstructed;
provided photos of Mr. Tayag's property relative to parking and
neighbor's space constraints; stated that only two cars have ever
parked in the parking lot in the back although the lot is supposed
to accommodate four cars; that the process has not yet been
completed on 1574 Pacific Avenue; that it should not be completed
by the City Council; that it is strictly a zoning matter and should
be referred back to the Planning Board; that Mr. Tayag should not
be concerned about having variance public hearings if no laws have
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
been violated; that requested hearings would allow public input and
correct any problems; and requested that Council refer the four
variances to the Planning Board.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding height of
weeds in said property's front yard, Mrs. Roberson stated that they
were higher every day and that they had never been trimmed.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding if Mr. Tayag
had made effort to maintain his property, Mrs. Roberson replied
"no" and referred to submitted photos for an example of what the
property looks like currently.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry as to whether there was
litter on the property that did not get picked up, Ms. Roberson
replied "yes".
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry as to whether there was
junk stored in the back, Ms. Roberson replied "yes", and that there
were little children playing everyday in the tiny, postage-stamp
size front yard and driveway.
Councilmember Lucas stated that that was a disgrace and that she
would inquire with the Community Development Director as to why
said situation continues to exist when the City is paying Section
8 money/rent for these properties when the maintenance is so poor;
that it was a disgrace for the neighborhood; and that the City
should not be paying public funds for it.
Councilmember Lucas clarified Save Pacific Avenue's recommendation
to refer the matter to the Planning Board to consider the following
four variances: 1) the front yard setback, 2) the side yard
setback for the bay window, 3) the parking configuration, and 4)
the side yard setback of the front re-constructed building.
Kim Murphy, Save Pacific Avenue, Alameda, thanked the Council for
hiring Mr. Trumbo to review the matter at 1574 Pacific Avenue;
referred to comments made in Mr. Trumbo's report; stated reduced
property values, increase in crime, added noise and traffic are
typical and quite real concerns of neighbors; that neighbors should
be allowed input in the beginning and not be deliberately excluded
from the process as has happened here; that a decent environment
needs to be created to enhance the lives of the low-income
occupants over the years; that she is a property owner in the
neighborhood; that in her profession she also worked with many low-
income families; that she could relate to both sides; that she
could see the anger and frustration of the neighbors that tax
dollars were used to ruin their peaceful neighborhood due to an
over-built, poor-quality project which the City supported; that she
had heard it referred to as the Winchester House of Pacific Avenue;
that she can also see the need for a decent environment for many
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
249
low-income families who will be calling it their home in future
years; that the saddest was with very little effort and expense the
project could have been done right; stated that the City Council
should refer all four variances back to the Planning Board for
public hearing so that these problems may be resolved in a positive
way; that the temporary Certificate of Occupancy must be kept in
place until all these issues are resolved so that Mr. Tayag does
not add back the two illegal units he was just ordered to remove;
that it is believed that this is a zoning problem, not a political
one; and that all four variances needed to be reviewed by the
Planning Board.
Charles Triebel, Attorney, Save Pacific Avenue, stated that in the
volumes of documentation created regarding the 1574 Pacific Avenue
matter, the following two basic issues needed to be addressed at
this time, which were not sufficiently dealt well with up to this
point or dealt with completely in Mr. Trumbo's report: 1) the
project was approved at the planning level having to do with zoning
laws without public notice after it had been denied previously with
public notice; that said approval was not a technicality of law,
but rather the basis for our legal system that we follow,
especially in our neighborhoods, so that we can live together as
neighbors, and 2) after the project was approved, it was approved
pursuant to staff interpretation of what Mr. Trumbo calls
"policies", policies having to do with the carryover of non-
conforming uses to a reconstructed project; questioned the
interpretation and legality of "policies"; questioned whether the
laws passed by elected representatives of the City of Alameda were
followed; that staff does not make those decisions because they are
not elected; that those policies should be reconsidered by Council;
that the Council, as the body directing staff, including the whole
matter of zoning, should be presented a real record of a public
hearing; that he is arguing the legal matters of non-conforming use
and public hearing; that the only way Council can obtain a real
record of a public hearing is to send the matter back to the
Planning Board to hear not only the two variances which Mr. Trumbo
recommends, but also the issue of the front yard setback that is
the non-conforming use issue, which Mr. Trumbo did not mention in
his report; that there was no variance submitted for the front yard
setback; that a record from the Planning Board on the issues of
parking and the side yard setback that have to do with the legal
policy set forth in the Alameda Municipal Code is what is needed
from the Planning Board so that an interested party, whether it's
Mr. Tayag or the neighbors, can appeal to you on the issue of
carrying forward non-conforming uses to a large project where there
is no specific provision set forth in the Code; requested that the
matter be referred back to the Planning Board to hear the two
variances that have already been filed, as recommended by Mr.
Trumbo, as well as to make a determination on the Planning
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
Director's initial okay in 1990 of this project having to do with
the side yard setback in the front building and parking, which are
the non-conforming use issues.
Vice Mayor Mannix moved that the Council meeting be continued after
midnight to continue discussion on Item 5-E [Report from Special
Investigator, John T. Trumbo, Reviewing Building and Planning
Permit Procedures for Residential Development at 1574 Pacific
Avenue and the Planning Board's Recommendations Regarding the
Matter] and Items 5-F, 5-G; 5-H, 5-1, and 5-J. Councilmember Lucas
seconded the motion.
David Self, Attorney on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Tayag, stated that Mr.
Tayag built said property at 1574 Pacific Avenue almost with his
bare hands; that Mr. Tayag was assisted by the Community
Development Department who cooperated with him, encouraged him, and
assisted in the design of the property in such a way as to meet,
without the need for a variance, all of the conditions of the
zoning for the City of Alameda; that Mr. Tayag worked with the City
and did his best; that Mr. Tayag built the unit where City staff
told him to; that Mr. Tayag designed said property how City staff
encouraged him to; that Mr. Tayag built the property in such a way
as to avoid all problems; that Mr. Tayag paid, at the request of
the City, an additional $1,500 after the property was constructed,
to hire a surveyor at his own expense to show that it was in
conformance with the requirements; that Mr. Tayag has done nothing
wrong; that Mr. Tayag made one small mistake on the setback for the
stairs in his design shown to the City; requested that Council ask
the City Attorney whether the design mistake is not allowed under
the City's law, because it permits a six foot intrusion for stairs
into any required setback; that the City and Mr. Trumbo agree that
Mr. Tayag is within the required setback for the main building;
requested that Council not require Mr. Tayag to seek a variance
from that requirement before seeking the City Attorney's opinion;
that with respect to the other variance proposed by the Planning
Commission, that Mr. Tayag sought and obtained written approval of
the combination of the bay windows, which Mr. Tayag is now being
asked to seek a variance for; that he and Mr. Tayag contend that
Mr. Tayag is entitled to keep that property; that if the City
wishes to change the property it should be at City expense, at the
very least, because Mr. Tayag has written approval for that change;
that Mr. Tayag had approval for everything he did; that Mr. Tayag
had approval for the two walls that were put up allegedly to create
a third bedroom in two units; that he and Mr. Tayag disagreed to
the removal of the two walls, but at the request of the City, Mr.
Tayag has removed them; that at the request of the City, Mr. Tayag
has hired a surveyor for $1,500; that due to a dispute with the
City, a $3,000 permit forgiveness was taken back and Mr. Tayag paid
over $8,000 as a result of that take back; that Mr. Tayag has
suffered a great deal because of the extensive requirements and
extensive testimony he has had to go through; that if there are
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
0 1
issues such as weeds in the front yard, he and Mr. Tayag are happy
to discuss those and do everything possible to clean them up; that
there have been allegations of public toilets in the front yard,
which were not placed there because of Mr. Tayag but rather a
mistake on the portable toilet manufactures delivery person who
should have been a block away at another building site; that there
have been complaints of prostitution, absolutely false, as stated
by the report from the City Manager; that there have been a number
of allegations against Mr. Tayag; that there have been a number of
complaints about Mr. Tayag; that Mr. Tayag has done nothing wrong;
that as Mr. Trumbo indicated, Mr. Tayag has tried to provide
decent, sanitary, convenient and attractive property; that Mr.
Trumbo has stated that the property is not a bad design; that the
design may not be the best, but Mr. Tayag is working with limited
financial resources; that if one reviews the pictures in the back
of Mr. Trumbo's report, the property is a worthwhile addition to
the City's housing stock for low- and moderate - income people; that
he and Mr. Tayag will do everything possible to cooperate with the
City; that if there are weeds growing on the property, to inform
him or Mr. Tayag and the weeds will be removed; that this is the
first time the issue of weeds has been brought to his attention;
that if there are other problems, he and Mr. Tayag would be happy
to discuss them; and requested that Council consider if the
property is a worth -while addition to the community.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that he visits a friend residing at the
property and requested that Mr. Self convey to Mr. Tayag that for
a long period of time, the weeds have been proliferating on that
property in the front yard and in the planting strip; that debris
has not been picked up; that it is not only offensive to the
residents in the neighborhood, but also to Mr. Tayag's tenants,
that Mr. Tayag would allow the property to deteriorate; and that a
gesture on Mr. Tayag's behalf could resolve the problem.
President Appezzato stated that Mr. Tayag's actions do not appear
to be actions of good faith.
Councilmember Lucas stated that Mr. Tayag needed to set a schedule
of regular inspections of the landscaping and litter, including
removal of junk in the backyard; that Mr. Tayag's excuse that he
does not know they are weeds is unacceptable; that Mr. Tayag's
neighbors have made him aware of the objections; that it is not
just the neighbors who suffer but also Mr. Tayag's tenants; that
Mr. Tayag has shown an incredibly inconsiderate attitude; and that
if Mr. Tayag built the building himself then he can also pickup the
litter and pull the weeds.
Mr. Self stated that one of the possible reasons, if not a complete
excuse for the condition of the property, is that the landscaping
has not yet been completed; that Mr. Tayag is awaiting a final
decision by the Council on whether any changes will occur for the
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
front yard, the bay windows, and relocation of one or botn
buildings; that due to the extent that there are mitigating
circumstances, that Mr. Tayag is owed a little bit on this; and
that Mr. Tayag is being asked to make something perfect that is not
yet approved as being final by the City.
President Appezzato stated that the City staff is not clean
regarding this matter; that there is enough blame to go a long way
on both sides; and agreed with Mr. Triebel that City staff should
not set policy, and believed that if City staff did, it was not
intentional.
Mr. Self stated that Mr. Tayag after having been requested to pay
$1,500, after not being given any temporary Occupancy Permits,
after being told that what Mr. Tayag has built with City approval
was no longer approved by the City, after being told to take out
two walls that the City had allowed him to build in the first
place, after having been complained about regarding a bay window
that had been approved by the City when Mr. Tayag put it in, Mr.
Tayag hired him as a lawyer; that he and Mr. Tayag are not happy to
have to deal with said matter; that Mr. Tayag does not speak the
best English; that Mr. Tayag needs someone to help him; and that
Mr. Tayag has been under a lot of pressure.
President Appezzato stated that he did not know how someone could
approve bedroom walls without closets, but that was not Mr. Tayag's
fault.
Mr. Self stated that Mr. Trumbo's report indicated that was what
happened, and that it did happen.
Gary Thomas, Planning Board President, stated that to the best of
his knowledge, there was no written permission given to put up a
wall and make a third bedroom; that there was no written permission
provided to do the window in the back unit the way it was done;
that permission was given verbally in the field; that on Page Eight
of the minutes during the public hearing under the Section entitled
"Deed Restrictions", it was noted under Item One, that the property
was a mess and needed to be cleaned up; that the property was still
a mess; that he indicated to the applicant and his attorney at the
hearing that he would not live at the property or move into it; and
that the Planning Board was informed that evening that the property
would be cleaned up.
Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that many comments made regarding the
golf consultants' report which was addressed earlier also applied
to Mr. Trumbo's report; that Mr. Trumbo did not call the neighbors;
that Mrs. Roberson called him at the very end of his contract
period; that Mr. Trumbo had completed his staff interviewing; that
Mr. Trumbo did not know what questions to ask of staff; that Mr.
Trumbo would have asked staff different questions if he had talked
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
411—
‘1.3
to the neighbors first; that the lack of citizen input effects both
the Golf Commission Report and the Trumbo Report; inquired how the
unit can be reported as a two bedroom in planning but a three
bedroom in the Housing Authority when it comes to paying rent, and
the letter documenting that is enclosed; that the parking aspect
had not been discussed; that last October when Peter Eckstein's
scheme to circumvent the zoning requirements on parking, fraudulent
intent was brought out by the fact that the owner could not wait
until the new units were complete and had their final Certificate
of Occupancy until he added the walls necessary to convert the new
units into three bedroom units; that there are no final
Certificates of Occupancy; that she has the letter from Steve
Karnowski of the Housing Authority certifying that the application
for rents to the Housing Authority as three bedrooms; that calling
it a family room and then taking rent monies for three bedrooms is
unexcusable; that one aspect of the parking issue, which was never
discussed at the Planning Board level, was the issue of tandem
parking; that the City's Zoning Code requires that tandem parking
be assigned to one unit in multiple-family dwellings; that tandem
parking units have to be assigned to one dwelling; that if the two
tandem parking spaces are assigned, there are not enough parking
spaces left over for the other two units no matter how it's
configured; that the Planning Board did not address the tandem
parking issue; that the Planning Board should address said issue;
that the Planning Board reviewed the total calculation, but did not
look at the issue of tandem parking and how that should be
interpreted as it is written in the present Code; and that the
tandem parking issue should be clarified for the Council.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding property
maintenance, the Community Development Director explained that
staff was in contact with Mr. Tayag regarding concerns raised by
the neighbors, and that conditions were changed; and that the City
can start watching the current problem.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding whether the
property was two or three bedrooms, the Community Development
Director stated that there have been changes made to the property;
that based on those changes, the property is a two bedroom unit and
the records of the Housing Authority reflect that fact that it is
structurally a two bedroom unit; that with respect to the unit
being changed from a two bedroom unit to a three, that the
situation is more complicated than anyone wishes to address because
the contribution of the Housing Authority is based on the value of
the voucher to the tenant, the amount of resources the tenant is
eligible to get; that it is an extremely complicated situation;
that at one point the Housing Authority did write it down in its
record as a three bedroom unit and that is no longer the case; that
the property is a two bedroom unit as Steve wrote to Eve Roberson
on the first of July; that Council is asking about two different
matters: 1) what does the Housing Authority consider the structure
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
254
to be, and 2) what is the nature of the rental assistance provided
at that structure; that both matters are detailed and complicated;
that from the Housing Authority's records' point of view, the
structure was a three bedroom unit, but is now recorded as a two
bedroom unit.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding difficulty
in obtaining a comprehensive understanding, the Community
Development Director stated that, if desired, Federal Regulations
which relate to the Rental Voucher Program and how voucher
assistance is computed could be provided for the Council's review
in an effort to obtain a better understanding.
The motion to continue the Council meeting after midnight and to
continue discussion on Item 5-E [Report from Special Investigator,
John T. Trumbo, Reviewing Building and Planning Permit Procedures
for Residential Development at 1574 Pacific Avenue and the Planning
Board's Recommendations Regarding the Matter] and Items 5-F, 5-G,
5-H, 5-1, and 5-J carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Gary Thomas, President, Planning Board, stated that of the four
variances being asked to be sent back to the Planning Board to
review, two of the variances are already before the Planning Board;
that the other two variances with regard to parking and side yard
setbacks were already reviewed at the last hearing and a decision
was made which are included in the findings.
Councilman Arnerich moved that the following four variances be
referred to the Planning Board: 1) the front yard setback, 2) the
side yard setback for the bay window, 3) the parking configuration,
and 4) the side yard setback of the front re-constructed building.
President Appezzato suggested that the motion be amended to include
approval of the 14 recommendations of the Planning Board.
In response to President Appezzato's inquiry regarding the Planning
Board's 14 recommendations and the four variance issues, the
Planning Director stated that the Planning Board has submitted
their findings to the Council; and that it was up to the Council
whether or not to accept the findings.
The City Attorney stated that there are two variances; that there
are no two other variances that have been determined to be
required; that some years ago the Planning Director in 1990 made
some decisions about parking and other interpretations; that those
decisions were not appealed and does not believe that the procedure
of a variance is available at this time; that if there are current
decisions or interpretations of the Planning Director, there is a
process to appeal that to the Planning Board by any aggrieved
person; that what the Council could do to make their action
technically correct is to refer the two variances back to the
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
755
Planning Board and to refer the other two matters to the Planning
Board for consideration, as long as Council does not refer to them
as variances.
Councilman Arnerich moved acceptance of the report on the condition
that the issues raised by the community with regard to the Planning
Director's decision on the parking access and configuration, and
the distance of the west side yard of the front duplex, be appealed
to the Planning Board for hearing and determination, along with the
variance applications already on file with the Planning Board on
the front yard setback and the bay window encroachment.
The City Attorney informed Council as to the implications of their
action; and stated that Council would be allowing an appeal of a
five-year-old decision that was never appealed before.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding whether the
issues of the parking configuration and the west side yard could be
reconsidered by the Planning Director, the Planning Director stated
that the Council may want to refer those two matters back to the
Planning Board to reconsider without directing that it either be a
variance or an appeal, but to have an opportunity for the neighbors
to bring it up in conjunction with the other two variances that
must go to hearing; that the Planning Board has addressed those;
that on page 11 of the minutes, parking and side yard issues are
addressed, but that Council could request that the Planning Board
reconsider same.
In response to Councilmember Lucas' inquiry regarding if the
Planning Board would hold a public hearing, the Planning Director
stated that a public hearing would be held on the two variances,
and that the other matters could also be addressed in conjunction
with that public hearing.
The Planning Director stated, for clarification purposes, that
Council is asking the Planning Board to reconsider their earlier
determination without directing that it be an Appeal or a Variance.
Councilman Arnerich concurred. Councilmember Lucas seconded the
motion.
In response to Councilmember DeWitt's comments that the Planning
Board had already had a public hearing on those two issues and
whether Council was requesting that another public hearing be held,
the Planning Director stated that that was her understanding and
that staff would take it back to the Planning Board.
The motion [to send four matters back to the Planning Board: the
two Variances currently before the Planning Board (for the stairs
encroaching into the front yard and for the modified bay window on
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
256
the rear unit) ; and the two issues (the legality of the parking and
the side yard setback for the front building) for reconsideration]
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Mannix moved acceptance of the remaining 12
recommendations from the Planning Board. Councilman Arnerich
second the motion which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95 -472) Report from Public Works Director regarding Alameda
County's Estuary Bridge Funding Cost Sharing Proposal.
Earl Peacock, Alameda, stated that he supports staff's
recommendation to turn the County's Proposal down; that he
submitted a copy of an Agreement between the Federal Government and
Alameda County regarding the Fruitvale Bridge to the City Clerk;
that said Agreement states ". .Whereas the Government [Federal
Government] agrees to undertake the construction of the new
Fruitvale Bridge Highway Bridge . . providing the County would
assume the ownership, operation and maintenance and replacement of
the Highway Bridge and appurtenant structures, if they fail." Mr.
Peacock further stated that the law is very specific and pertains
to all three bridges.
Donald LaBelle, Director of Public Works, Alameda County, stated
that the County requests the City Council to postpone a decision on
staff's first recommendation [that the City not enter into an
agreement with the County to share the costs of operations and
maintenance for the Estuary Bridges] until the Board of
Supervisor's extension date of September 12th; that the County
supports Recommendations 2 and 3 [(2) that the City Council send a
letter of support to the U.S. Coast Guard endorsing the County's
proposal to eliminate staffed bridges at night, and (3) that the
City work aggressively to obtain State approval of a regional
vehicle registration fee for this purpose.]; and submitted a
document from the State Controller's Office on total revenues
expended for mileage each maintains.
Councilman Arnerich stated that he believes the County should
continue to fund the bridges.
Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated that in the background material a
$10.00 tariff for boat owners is suggested; boats do not use
bridges, cars do; and most boats in Alameda are moored west of the
Bridge.
Councilmember Lucas moved the three staff recommendations.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995
President Appezzato stated that Mr. LaBelle had requested that the
first recommendation be delayed while the Board of Supervisors
continue negotiations.
Vice Mayor Mannix stated that he does not think that at any point
he will be prepared to enter into an agreement to share the costs
of the operations of the Bridge; that the operation of the bridge
is the County's responsibility.
President Appezzato stated that he concurred; however, in the
spirit of negotiation with the County, it does not hurt to
acquiesce.
The City Manager stated that the County is in a bad financial
position; no one wants the City of Alameda to pay for the Bridge;
he would like to continue the dialogue with the County on funding;
and perhaps there is an obligation on part of the Federal
government to pay for it.
Councilmember Lucas withdrew her original motion, and moved
approval of the second and third recommendations.
Councilman Arnerich seconded the alternate motion, with the caveat
that the City be careful [in its deliberations].
The motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(95 -473) Report from Public Works Director recommending
Consent to Assignment of Ground Lease to Harbor Bay Village Five
Associates of Real Property held under Lease by and between the
City of Alameda and Harbor Bay Isle Associates [4.99 Acres - Gun
Club /R.V. Storage Site].
Councilmember DeWitt moved acceptance of the report. Councilmember
Lucas seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(95 -474) Resolution No. 12676 "Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding and Salary Resolution Between the Alameda Police
Officers Association and the City of Alameda for the Period
Commencing January 1, 1995 and Ending December 31, 1998." Adopted.
Dick Rudloff, Chair, City of Alameda's Management and Confidential
Employees' Association (MCEA), stated that the Association reviewed
the three Salary Resolutions; that said Resolutions recognize
salary adjustments necessary to maintain equity with the other
communities, and internally are necessary to address the
differential compaction issues; and that the MCEA encourages
approval and looks forward to receiving the same fair and equitable
treatment in their negotiations.
Regular Mcetutg, Alan la city council
July 18, 1995
2.60
Councilmember Lucas moved adoption of the Resolution and that 1% of
the General Fund Reserves for Fiscal Year 1995 -96 be used to fund
the various City programs. Vice Mayor Mannix seconded the motion
which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers
Arnerich, Lucas, and Vice Mayor Mannix - 3. Noes: Councilmember
DeWitt and President Appezzato - 2. Absent: None.
(95 -476) Resolution No. 12678 "Approving Memorandum of
Understanding and Salary Resolution Between the Alameda Municipal
Fire Management Association and the City of Alameda for the Period
Commencing January 1, 1995 and Ending December 31, 1999." Adopted.
The Fire Chief stated that he routinely asks the chief officers to
work free overtime for the City to cover their own vacations and to
work in lower classifications to directly save overtime costs for
the City; that a few years ago the salary differential for the
first few steps of chief officers was allowed to fall below the
salary of the captains that they supervise; and that in order to
finance the cost of restoring that differential so that people they
supervise would not make more than them, the chief officers for
this particular MOU have agreed to volunteer to work additional
overtime to cover two positions at once, an additional time so that
the amount of new overtime that will be saved will more than cover
the cost of restoring that differential.
Mike Devlin, President, Fire Management Association, stated that
there was only one issue in their MOU, that being the salary
differential; that the Association showed the City the problem, the
cost to restore the differential, and how they are going to fund
their own differential.
Vice Mayor Mannix moved adoption of the Resolution and that 1% of
the General Fund Reserves for Fiscal Year 1995 -96 be used to fund
the various City programs. Councilman Arnerich seconded the
motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt stated that he believes it
is a dangerous practice to start using the City's Reserves for pay
raises, which is the reason why he is voting against the motion.
The motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers Arnerich, Lucas, and Vice Mayor Mannix - 3. Noes:
Councilmember DeWitt and President Appezzato - 2. Absent: None.
(95 -477) Written Communication from Andy Fang, Alameda
Florist, opposing the selling of low- priced flowers at the Farmer's
Market. (Carried over to the August 1, 1995, Regular Council
Meeting.)
The City Council, due to the lateness of the hour, carried the item
over to the next Council meeting.
Regular Muting, Alameda City Coonial
July 18, 1995
9
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (Public Comment)
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (Communications from Council)
(95-478) Mayor Appezzato requested that the City Manager bring
back a proposal on the potential of placing an [revenue] initiative
on the ballot; and that the City Manager may wish to wait until all
negotiations have been completed.
(95-479) Mayor Appezzato stated that he has received a request
from the Friends of the Library to take the lead in the campaign to
fund the new library and get the bond initiative passed; that he
also received letters from the Victorian Preservation Society,
Honora Murphy, and Susan Correa [Library Board), who also want to
be involved; and that the City Manager contact Friends of the
Library, Honora Murphy, Susan Correa, the Library Board, and the
Historic Museum Society to come up with a group to get the bond
passed.
(95-480) Councilmember DeWitt requested that a letter from Mr.
Al Greene, requesting a temporary moratorium on fast food
businesses at Harbor Bay Landing, be reviewed and addressed by
staff.
ADJOURNMENT
a.m.
(95-481) President Appezzato adjourned the meeting at 1:54
Res ectfully submitted,
DI NE B. FELSCH, CMC
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance
with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting, Alameda City Council
July 18, 1995