Loading...
2001-02-20 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 20, 2001- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. [Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at 8:05 p.m.] Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced that the recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending December 31, 2000, including Midyear Adjustments, and approving new positions [paragraph no. 01 -0841 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.1 [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *01 -082) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings held on December 19, 2000 and January 31, 2001; the Special City Council Meeting held on January 31, 2001; and the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 6, 2001. Approved. ( *01 -083) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending December 31, 2000. Accepted. (01 -084) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial Report for period ending December 31, 2000, including Midyear Adjustments, and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 February 20, 2001 approving new positions. Diane Coler -Dark, Alameda Museum, stated the Museum is being asked to enter into a three -year lease with [rent] increases starting as of March l; the Museum cannot enter into the contract [lease] without Council guidance; the Museum will shoulder the first increase, and requests remaining increases be borne by the City; 2002 rent would be $3435 per month as opposed to the current rent of $3200 per month; the third year would be $3686 per month; the Museum has been on a month -to -month basis for 10 years without an increase during said period; further stated the Museum has been negotiating with the Masons [Organization, property owners]; the rent increases are 5% the first year and 7% the next two years. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding the last rent increase, Ms. Coler -Dark stated there have not been any increases since the Museum moved into the space. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there is an escape clause if the Museum wants to get out of the lease early. Ms. Coler -Dark responded the current lease presented by the Masons did not include it [escape clause], but she would request that a six -month escape clause be included. Mayor Appezzato recognized members of the audience in attendance to support the Museum. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Museum would enter into a lease which does not have the escape clause or an option to terminate the lease. Ms. Coler -Dark responded in the negative; stated the Masons are aware the Museum does not intend to sign a lease without it [escape clause]. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the rent is below typical market value for the Park Street area, to which Ms. Coler -Dark responded in the affirmative; stated increases will result in rents of $0.37 per square foot and $0.43 per square foot, which is below market value. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the City continuing to pay 1000 of the Museum's rent conditioned on the Museum negotiating a lease with an escape clause and approval of the staff recommendation [accept Financial Report for quarter ending December 31, 2000 for all funds and approve the supplemental appropriations and the positions recommended]. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 February 20, 2001 Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the City would be protected from being obligated to continue to pay rent in the event the Museum moves. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City Council can only appropriate money one year at a time; Council can appropriate money this year with the intent to bring it before the Council to appropriate money in the budget next year. Ms. Coler -Dark stated the Museum is the only party entering into lease; however, the Museum cannot enter into a lease without City funding. Councilmember Johnson clarified her motion was to continue paying 1000 of the increased amount of Museum rent. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.1 ( *01 -085) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for period ending December 31, 2000 for Sales Transactions in the Third Calendar Quarter. Accepted. ( *01 -086) Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to the State Water Resources Control Board supporting the East Bay Municipal Utility District's grant application for its proposed East Bayshore Recycled Water Project. Accepted. ( *01 -087) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Calling for Bids for the Replacement of the Existing One Hundred Fifty (150) Electric Golf Carts. Accepted. ( *01 -088) Resolution No. 13315, "Approving Lease and Leaseback of Municipal Property to Refinance Certain Public Improvements from Proceeds of Certificates of Participation in the Aggregate Principal Amount of Not to Exceed $12,000,000, Approving Official Statement and Certificate Purchase Agreement, and Approving Related Agreements and Actions." Adopted. ( *01 -089) Resolution No. 13316, "Consenting to and Calling a Joint Public Hearing on April 3, 2001, on the Proposed Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project [626 Buena Vista Avenue]. Adopted. ( *01 -090) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,957,532.22. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 February 20, 2001 (01 -091) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's decision denying Variance, V- 00 -26, and partially denying Major Design Review, DR -00 -117, for expansion of the corner commercial space into the patio, reduction in the size of the patio, installation of windows to inclose the patio, to allow the width of the planters along Pacific Avenue frontage to be 3 feet wide where a minimum 5 feet width is required; and to not provide the two additional required on -site parking spaces; and related Resolution. The site is located at 1700 Webster Street, within the C -C, Community Commercial Zoning District. Applicant /Appellant: Ernest Ramirez of Keystone Company representing John Ng; (01 -091A) Resolution No. 13317, "Approving the Appeal of Ernest Ramirez of Keystone Company for John Ng and Overturning, in part, the Planning Board's Denial of Variance, V- 00 -26, and Partial Denial of Major Design Review, DR -00 -117 for the Expansion of the Wienerschnitzel Commercial Complex at 1700 Webster Street." Adopted. The Development Review Manager provided a brief background of the project; stated the Applicant /Appellant proposed amendments to the project as follows: 1) expanding Double Rainbow into part of the patio area; 2) reducing size of patio; and 3) installing windows to inclose the patio area; the increased floor area resulting from proposed changes increased the parking requirement from 15 spaces to 17 spaces, creating a parking deficit; there are two Variances before Council which address: 1) the parking deficit; and 2) reduction of the landscaping requirement; outlined Planning Board actions and rationale. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the request for the parking Variance was triggered because enclosing the patio, without a roof, requires an additional parking space. The Development Review Manager responded that when the project was approved, the patio was open and parking was not required; however, the [Municipal] Code states enclosed, unroofed, outdoor areas shall be counted for parking whether it is retail or restaurant use; the area is counted for parking at a lower ratio; when the area was enclosed and doors were added, staff had to require parking. Mayor Appezzato stated there will be no roof; windows will be 500 open; the Applicant /Appellant made revisions to provide access [to the patio] from the parking lot; further stated the issues are: 1) expansion of the Double Rainbow; and 2) doors [to the patio] from both restaurants and the parking lot; the question is whether enclosing the patio triggers a parking Variance. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 February 20, 2001 Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the original plans had a door to the patio from Wienerschnitzel, to which the Development Review Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the proposed plan requests expansion of Double Rainbow, to which the Development Review Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated there is a reduction in the patio; inquired whether expansion will allow Double Rainbow to operate as a full cafe. The Development Review Manager stated the Applicant /Appellant indicated the Double Rainbow would be expanded from ice cream to a cafe; additional floor space is needed for additional kitchen equipment. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing and requested the Appellant to outline changes [to the project] which were not included in the staff report. Ernest Ramirez, Architect for Applicant /Appellant, outlined the following project changes: 1) the door between Wienerschnitzel and the patio was eliminated; 2) a door from the parking lot to the patio was added; 3) 160 additional square feet is needed for Double Rainbow's expanded services, which triggers an additional required parking space; if a 500 [compact spaces] to 500 [standard spaces] ratio is used for parking, there can be 16 spaces on the lot; therefore, a Variance would not be needed; Public Works has reviewed the layout with 16 [parking] spaces and Planning will have to review the matter. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether 16 spaces could be provided, to which Mr. Ramirez responded in the affirmative. Mr. Ramirez stated a Variance is requested to reduce [size of] the planter on Pacific Avenue from 5 feet to 3 feet; said reduction is needed to accomplish the parking layout which provides 16 spaces; to meet the [Municipal] Code, 70 landscaping is required for the site; currently, 130 landscaping is provided, including reduction of the planter from 5 feet to 3 feet; 5 foot and 61� foot planters are proposed along the neighbors side. Mayor Appezzato inquired the required size of planters along the neighbors side, to which Mr. Ramirez responded 3 feet. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether planters are being expanded next to residential properties and reduced on the street side. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 February 20, 2001 Mr. Ramirez responded in the affirmative; stated the street side is a pedestrian walkway; traffic will be going in and out of the parking lot; there is no need for high shrubs; landscaping near neighbors will provide a buffer; the parking layout accomplishes 16 spaces; the patio has not changed except the back facade is going from a 42 -inch wall to a full size wall with sliding glass windows on both sides; signage and colors have been selected; the fabric awnings will be green [Double Rainbow] and red [Wienerschnitzel]. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Applicant /Appellant has reached an agreement with West Alameda Business Association (WABA) on the awnings and colors. Mr. Ramirez responded the Applicant /Appellant has agreed to use darker stucco as requested by WABA; WABA recommended checkered tile for the base of the building, however, the Applicant /Appellant is recommending a larger copper -tone tile; the tile WABA is recommending makes the facility too busy; there is disagreement with WABA on the awnings; WABA would prefer burgundy awnings for the entire facility; further stated the proposed signs meet City requirements. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether one color awning could serve both parts of the building. Mr. Ramirez responded there are two separate facilities; different color awnings are used to identify individual businesses. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council should resolve issues, e.g. size and color of tiles. Mr. Ramirez responded it would be beneficial; said matter has not resolved elsewhere. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the dark, larger tile is proposed, to which Mr. Ramirez responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether WABA is recommending the smaller checkered tile, to which Mr. Ramirez responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the parking plan with larger spaces was excellent; people are driving larger vehicles; the parking stalls should remain as previously presented; if additional parking spaces are required, Applicant /Appellant should pay an in lieu [parking] fee; the key issue regarding the patio is the openness; the plan to have the patio open to both restaurants and the parking area would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 February 20, 2001 solve a lot of problems; inquired whether there could be a doorway from Wienerschnitzel to the patio. Mr. Ramirez responded it would be possible. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the patio size would be reduced, to which Mr. Ramirez responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato stated the issues are: 1) doors from the parking lot and Wienerschnitzel to the patio; 2) whether a parking Variance is required for the patio; and 3) reduction of the planter size along the sidewalk. Mr. Ramirez stated the Applicant /Appellant is requesting [Council to make] findings that the patio does not require an additional parking space since parking was not required [for patio] when the project was [originally] approved; the change is not dramatic enough to be considered an enclosure. The Development Review Manager stated there is an issue with one parking space required by the patio; the revised parking plan [with 16 spaces] was received in a reduced size via fax today and staff is relying on the Applicant /Appellant being accurate. The Planning Director stated the signage presented by the Applicant /Appellant is not on file with the Planning Department; the Applicant /Appellant is circumventing the process by attempting to the place the issue before Council. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council could only deal with the Variance and not deal with Design Review, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Design Review issues, e.g. color of tiles, could be resolved by Planning staff and the Applicant /Appellant, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Proponents: Elbin Chiu, Appellant, Bayview Investment Group, Inc.; Beth Remenap, Double Rainbow Ice Creams; Sam Chan, Alameda; Anthony Chiu, Alameda; Mimi Chow, Alameda; John Chop, Alameda; Richard Neveln, Alameda; and Rena Rickles, Attorney for Appellant. Opponents: Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 February 20, 2001 Kent Rosenblum, West Alameda Business Association (WABA); Sarah Sykes, Executive Director, WABA; Georgia Madden, WABA; Juan Vasquez, College of Alameda and WABA; John Piziali, Planning Board Member; Marie Gilmore, Planning Board Member; and Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society. Neutral: John Roake, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether WABA opposes the Variance for the planter; stated the planters are being shifted; there will be greater buffers between the business and residential area. Georgia Madden, WABA, responded it [planter] is acceptable. Councilmember Johnson stated that she supports increasing Double Rainbow's square footage to offer a more full service restaurant; Design Review will not be addressed tonight; the issue is whether the addition of patio windows triggers the requirement of an additional parking space; the Applicant /Appellant is adding a door from each restaurant and the back [parking lot]; there was never access [to patio] from the street; the matter should be resolved tonight; Council should approve the parking plan; 50% compact and 50% standard size [parking spaces] is adequate; parking in business districts should be reviewed in the future; there should be more concentrated businesses and central parking; the addition of [patio] glass should not trigger [requiring] an additional parking space; therefore, the parking requirement can be met without a Variance; that she supports the Variance for the planter. Councilmember Kerr stated the original concept was for Wienerschnitzel to provide hot food and Double Rainbow to provide ice cream, with the patio as a mutual seating place; that she does not support compact parking spaces; the project was approved by the Council and the project could have been built. Councilmember Johnson clarified that she supports the Applicant /Appellant's offer to put the door back in from Wienerschnitzel to the patio. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated changes result in a better project; whether the patio triggers a Variance seems to be the main issue; the planter boxes and [Double Rainbow] increased building size are acceptable; the [patio] enclosure provides security; the owner Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 February 20, 2001 should have the right to lock the property which he owns. The City Attorney stated there are categories of decisions which are being made tonight: 1) an interpretation of the Zoning Code which has Citywide implications; the Council can decide and is the ultimate arbitrator of said interpretation; if Council decides such an enclosure does not require parking, it is an interpretation of the Code that applies Citywide, it does not apply just to the particular business; and 2) all other issues, e.g. Variances and planters, which only apply to the particular Applicant /Appellant. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the Applicant /Appellant should have the right to provide an enclosure; if said enclosure triggers parking, the property owner should pay an in lieu [parking] fee; there are other businesses in the area which will request parking Variances; parking is needed in the area; funds are needed to assist with parking in the area, which is what the in lieu parking fee is for; the owner of the property should pay an in lieu fee. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the matter would have to return to the Planning Board for in lieu fees. The Planning Director responded the Council could take action to approve the project and make it subject to obtaining an in lieu fee for the enclosure. Councilmember Kerr requested the Planning Director to clarify why enclosures require parking. The Planning Director responded when restaurants place patio seating on the sidewalk, parking is not required; no parking requirement was assessed for seating provided as part of the Browman Project [at the corner of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue]; other developments, such as the former Courtyard Restaurant, O'Ryan's Tavern and Lucky 13, have unenclosed areas with seating and parking was required for said areas; the interpretation is lawful; the matter has been discussed with the Attorney's Office; the interpretation has been consistently applied; Council may change said interpretation and it will apply to other future projects. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether parking was required for Starbucks [Brownian Project], to which the Planning Director responded in the negative; stated the distinction is parking has not been required for seating at places such as Starbucks, the Pampered Pup and Linguini's Pizza Place. The Planning Director further stated the project changed and the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 February 20, 2001 patio became exclusive to one business, Double Rainbow; the patio was no longer going to be available from Wienerschnitzel and the parking lot; the patio is completely enclosed and no longer has interaction with the street. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether parking should still be required if the patio is open to both resturants and the parking lot. The Planning Director responded when areas can be secured, businesses tend to put out waiter stations and it becomes an extension of the restaurant, similar to other businesses mentioned; the space [patio] can be secured; Council can guide the Planning Department's future interpretation of said matter. Rena Rickles, Attorney for Applicant /Appellant, stated Council should consider making Variance findings for parking as opposed to in lieu [fees]; findings which support a Variance include that the project is creating two new parking spaces on the street. The Development Review Manager stated the Municipal Code provides the parking calculations for unroofed storage or sales areas; whenever a business uses an area without a roof, there is a much lesser parking requirement, which is the requirement Planning has imposed [on the proposed project]. Mayor Appezzato stated whether or not there is a glass enclosure will not trigger one more or one less person that will shop at the facility. Councilmember Daysog stated there is a picture of what is desired for Webster Street; WABA wants pedestrian- oriented businesses; said vision should be held firm; when the project was previously approved, it met expectations; the [patio] glass is not the issue, the larger issue is sticking to expectations; it is important to uphold the decision of the Planning Board and Planning staff. Councilmember Johnson stated the issue could be resolved tonight if Council granted a Variance for the parking place on the condition that the Applicant /Appellant donate the equivelent amount of an in lieu fee; if the Variance is denied, the Applicant /Appellant would go to the Planning Board requesting [to pay] the in lieu fee. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he agrees with said suggestion. Mayor Appezzato stated that th decision of the Planning Board, not take offense; people make been constructed. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council February 20, 2001 e Council has not agreed with every however, the Planning Board should changes, even after buildings have 10 Rena Rikles, Attorney for Applicant /Appellant, stated Council seems to agree the project, as modified, requires two parking spaces: 1) for the [patio] enclosure, and 2) for the Double Rainbow [increased square footage]; inquired whether a Variance is being approved; further stated if so, the in lieu fee is not required. Councilmember Johnson responded that her suggestion is to grant the Variance; however, to satisfy concerns over parking and avoid returning to the Planning Board, the motion could be to grant the Variance and have a voluntary contribution in the equivalent amount of the in lieu fee for one parking spot. Ms. Rickles inquired whether Council wants 16 parking spaces on the site and one [voluntary contribution of an] in lieu parking fee. Mayor Appezzato stated the Planning Board's biggest concern was parking; the requirement is 17 parking spaces; the Applicant/ Appellant will provide 16 spaces, and pay an in lieu fee for the other [space]. Councilmember Johnson clarified, technically, it is not an in lieu fee, it is a donation. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the matter would still have to return to the Planning Board on the Consent Calendar. The City Attorney stated the Council is attempting to expedite the project and is discussing a creative solution; a final decision will be reached tonight; if the Applicant /Appellant wants to move forward, they could volunteer to pay the functional equivalent of an in lieu space, which is approximately $5,000 for one spaces; if the Applicant /Appellant voluntarily agrees to deposit said amount in the parking fund, Councilmember Johnson could make a motion to expedite the project and have a final decision tonight, without having to return to the Planning Board. Ms. Rickles stated the Applicant /Appellant agrees [to make a voluntary contribution in amount of in lieu fee]. Mayor Appezzato requested clarification on whether the Planning Board's main concern is parking. Planning Board Member Marie Gilmore stated the Council is trying to expedite the process, however, the project can be approved subject to the Planning Board's approval of the in lieu fees; the Applicant /Appellant is scheduled for the Planning Board's Monday night Meeting [February 26, 2001]; the matter will not have to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 February 20, 2001 return to Council; Deign Review has to be reviewed with staff; also, the Planning Board was concerned that the patio remain open to both businesses. The City Attorney stated Council has two options: 1) approve the project subject to payment of an in lieu fee, which would be approved by the Planning Board; or 2) the Applicant /Appellant can agree to make a voluntary contribution tonight which is the functional equivalent of in lieu [fee]. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the Variance on planter boxes; denial of the Variance on parking because consideration of the in lieu fee is on the Planning Board Agenda Monday night [February 26, 2001]. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the motion included that there be a door from Wienerschnitzel [to patio]. Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that her motion included adoption of all the changes discussed tonight. The City Attorney requested Council to delegate the ability to listen to the recording and develop a resolution that makes the required findings of extraordinary circumstances necessitating the Variance. Councilmembers Johnson, DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato concurred [with said request]. The Planning Director stated the conditions which will be in the Resolution are: 1) approval shall not be enforced and in effect unless and until the Applicant /Appellant secures an lieu parking fee; 2) the project shall be tied to the set of exhibits, drawings and plans, and shall be consistent with the plans prepared by Keystone Architecture; 3) the Applicant /Appellant must go through final Design Review with the Planning Director, to deal with issues of the color - board, sign permit, bicycle racks and other details; 4) the affordable housing fee must be paid prior to issuance of a building permit; 5) there shall be no signage on the windows; 5) hold harmless; 6) the doors [to patio] shall be required to be kept open during business hours, which must be confirmed by a recorded document. Councilmember Johnson stated said conditions sound consistent [with discussion]. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated it should be clear that there is a requirement for only one parking space in lieu fee. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 February 20, 2001 The Planning Director stated the obligation for the total of 17 parking spaces, with up to 50% compact [spaces] on site and one space satisfied by an in lieu fee, can be made explicit. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the [500] compact [parking spaces] issue could be approved by Council, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Johnson further inquired whether the only issue is the in lieu fee, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether said discussion correctly reflected the motion, to which Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Kerr - 2. Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 10:38 p.m. and reconvened the Regular Meeting at 10:49 p.m. (01 -092) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board determination that a proposal to expand an existing industrial building located at 1835 Oak Street by approximately 15,000 square feet would not be in compliance with the General Plan Mixed Use M -U -5 designation; and related Resolution. The site is located within the M -2, General Industrial Zoning District. Applicant /Appellant: Joseph Brescia for Architectural Glass and Aluminum; and (01 -092A) Resolution No. 13318, "Upholding the Planing Board's Determination that a Proposed Increased Floor Area for an Existing Industrial Building at 1835 Oak Street would not be in Compliance with the City of Alameda General Plan." Adopted. The Planning Director stated the matter before Council is an interpretation of the General Plan; staff has been in discussion with Architectural Glass and Aluminum regarding the adaptive reuse of an existing industrial facility on Oak Street; the Site is within the M -U -5 area, which is referred to in the General Plan as the Northern Waterfront; the area is identified in the policies of the General Plan to ultimately be redeveloped to 300 units of housing and a 10 acre park; Table 2.1 in the General Plan Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 February 20, 2001 identifies up to 40,000 square feet of office space; staff found industrial glass use is equivalent to the previous use, which was the Winter Ford repair facility and parts department; portions of buildings on the site have been demolished and [footage] can be credited toward additional square footage; however, the Applicant/ Appellant's proposal includes 3,070 square feet over the amount which will be demolished; the Applicant /Appellant has attempted to have a compact architectural program which is consistent with its needs; part of the ground floor is being converted to accommodate the design, engineering and administrative portions of the industrial use; a mezzanine will be added, which will be new construction; a two -story 15,000 square foot building is proposed at the front of the property, of which 9,800 [square feet] will be new construction; due to demolition, 6,700 square feet will be credited toward new construction; the site is part of a larger 27- acre mixed use area designated in the General Plan; policies and interpretations which are applied to the proposed project apply throughout the entire M -U -5 area, which includes land north and south of Clement Avenue; expansion cannot be permitted unless it replaces existing buildings; staff has suggested that Architectural Glass and Aluminum demolish a detached 2,610 square foot building at the rear of the site, which is currently being used for storage of documents; said storage could be located off -site; the remaining 400 square feet could be resolved through square footage measurements, e.g. stairwells are not counted on both levels; Planning is in the process of revisiting the General Plan, part of which will be ensuring the policies in place are applicable to the kind of development in the community; the M -U -5 area will be reviewed; staff has discussed the option of Architectural Glass and Aluminum committing the demolition of the [rear 2,610 square foot] building, but staying removal of the building pending the General Plan update or occupancy of the building; said option would allow the Company to move forward with the realization that the building might have to be taken down, but postponing demolition until there is an opportunity to review whether the area is intended to be redeveloped to housing over the next 20 years; if the General Plan update is completed and housing is encouraged in the area, the building would have to come down; alternatively, if light industrial uses are found appropriate in the location, the requirement [to demolish the building] could be removed by a change in General Plan policies; an application has not been filed, the Appeal is arising out of pre- application discussions with Architectural Glass and Aluminum. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether a solution is to withhold 3,000 square feet until the General Plan is amended. The Planning Director responded an additional building can be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 February 20, 2001 identified for demolition and a binding agreement, with a financial security, entered into to stay demolition until occupancy or completion of the General Plan update; the Applicant /Appellant would could move forward with the entire project; another alternative is to seek a General Plan Amendment. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether hours of operation are restricted, to which the Planning Director responded in the negative; stated the area is zoned for industrial use. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether said restriction could be put in place if office space is granted. The Planning Director responded that under Design Review authority, there is not an opportunity to place operational controls on the building. Councilmember Kerr stated there is only a wire fence between the business and homes along Buena Vista Avenue; along the perimeter of said fence, aluminum is being placed and picked up; there is a change in the use of the yard which did not occur with the previous two businesses, Winter Ford and Enterprise Rent -a -Car. The Planning Director responded the storage is not occurring in a lawful manner at this time; it [storage] needs to be enclosed; there might not be operational aspects other than moving objects; the business needs to provide parking; the pre- application process has not allowed the Applicant /Appellant to solidify business operations; from discussion, the Applicant /Appellant intends to install storage and improve building's soundproofing; the Applicant /Appellant would like to accomplish most of the storage internally; certain modifications, e.g. fencing, acoustics and building addition, will address noise- and visual impacts; currently, Architectural Glass and Aluminum is coping with a split site operation [Alameda /Oakland]. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether storage and fork lift operations along open fences adjacent to homes could be modified. The Planning Director responded the Applicant /Appellant indicated conditions can be improved; unenclosed storage is permitted in industrial areas subject to certain fencing requirements; outside operations are not allowed without a Use Permit. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the company can use fork lifts to move things next to homes. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 February 20, 2001 would work with the Applicant /Appellant to move storage away from the area [adjacent to homes] and provide fencing; the Applicant/ Appellant is aware of potential [noise] problems and will improve the acoustical situation. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the General Plan indicates the area could be used in the future for housing; inquired what would trigger the development of housing in the area. The Planning Director responded the policies of the General Plan are to allow an existing industrial use to live out its economic life; the policy is intended to encourage owners to develop the land into housing over time, as people no longer want to pursue industrial operations; the City would not necessarily take over the property. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents: Marc Toma, Architect for Applicant /Appellant; Joseph Brescia, Applicant /Appellant, Architectural Glass and Aluminum; Catherine Criss Flowers, Applicant /Appellant, Architectural Glass and Aluminum; Floyd Hibbits, Alameda; Dr. Victoria Brown, Chamber of Commerce; Juan Vazquez, College of Alameda and Chamber of Commerce; Moira Fossum, Chamber of Commerce; and Kent Rosenblum, Chamber of Commerce. Opponents: Eileen Mullins, Alameda; Jeff Kral, Alameda; and Dawn Lemoine, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Appezzato inquired what the business can do legally at the present time. The Planning Director responded the manufacturing operation can be conducted; approximately 12,000 square feet could be constructed for office space. Mayor Appezzato inquired how much office space is desired, to which the Planning Director responded 15,000 square feet. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 16 February 20, 2001 Mayor Appezzato further inquired whether the Applicant /Appellant wants [to construct] 3,000 more square feet [than is allowed], to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated the plan has parking spaces near the building and the storage /lay -down area next to houses; some houses are on the property line; inquired whether parking could be near the fence and the lay -down area near the building. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated staff has been working with the Applicant /Appellant on what is allowable; architectural plans have not been submitted; issues, e.g. solid board fencing, screening, location of outdoor storage and parking, and sufficient parking, have not been dealt with; neighbors will be contacted to work with Architectural Glass and Aluminum to address lighting and fencing; said matters can be addressed through Design Review; the Applicant /Appellant will have to comply with the Noise Ordinance; staff can address many concerns, e.g. location of storage and lighting, to improve visual and noise impacts. Councilmember Kerr suggested a community neighborhood meeting be held. The Planning Director responded that when the project proposal is evaluated, discussions could take place on how modifications could best address neighborhood concerns. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Council action tonight interprets the General Plan; and whether the Applicant /Appellant could apply for a Variance if Council follows the staff recommendation and square footage cannot be resolved. The Planning Director responded a Variance is not a remedy for the General Plan; projects must comply with or amend the General Plan; the issue of square footage is part of the interpretation of the General Plan; if Council upholds the interpretation, no more square footage could be added to the site. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the business operation will be in conformance with the laws of the City, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Vice Mayor DeWitt inquired what specific action Council will take this evening, e.g. amend General Plan; further inquired how Council can deal with the extra 3,070 square feet. The Planning Director responded Council is considering an Appeal of her interpretation of the General Plan; Architectural Glass and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 17 February 20, 2001 Aluminum can move forward with the entire 15,000 square foot office proposal; however, a 2,610 square foot building is at stake. Vice Mayor DeWitt moved approval of the [Planning Director's] interpretation [of the General Plan]. [Adoption of Resolution No. 13318, "Upholding the Planing Board's Determination that a Proposed Increased Floor Area for an Existing Industrial Building at 1835 Oak Street would not be in Compliance with the City of Alameda General Plan. "] Councilmember Daysog inquired what the City's jobs to housing balance is currently; whether there is more housing than jobs; and what will be coming down the pipeline 5 to 10 years from now. The Planning Director responded the jobs -to- housing balance for the entire Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) region is approximately 1.47 jobs per household; prior to closure of the [Naval] Air Station, the City of Alameda's jobs -to- housing balance was 1.3 to 1.35 jobs per house; with closure of the Naval Air Station, there are 0.9 jobs per household in Alameda; developments, e.g. Harbor Bay Business Park build out and redevelopment of Alameda Point, will restore lost jobs and bring the City closer to the ABAG regional average; if there is full build out of the General Plan, the City would not provide enough housing for workers in Alameda. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether 300 units of housing are estimated for the entire [Northern Waterfront] area, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether said housing [300 units] was counted toward ABAG [housing] requirements. The Planning Director responded in the negative; stated said housing was not identified in the current Housing Element; since the area is currently identified for housing in the General Plan, the Housing Element update will address whether a portion of the area, between Clement Avenue and Buena Vista Avenue, should remain industrial or become housing. Councilmember Daysog stated as the City completes the Housing Element update, areas where housing can be developed must be identified; inquired what the implications would be if Council allowed the 3,070 square feet. The Planning Director responded the issue is not the one project, Council is interpreting the General Plan as it applies to 27 acres; a number of other land owners, e.g. SKS and Banta Collins, would be Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 18 February 20, 2001 able to do small projects and expand industrial activity, increasing the likelihood said uses will remain and moving away from housing production. Councilmember Daysog stated the decision sets a precedence; inquired whether it is possible to go through the General Plan update process and amend the General Plan to allow for the creation of 3,070 square feet of additional office space, while still securing housing in the area. The Planning Director stated responded in the affirmative; stated safeguards allow business and residential to co- exist; the General Plan can set policy direction. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Planning Director's proposed solution allows construction of the entire 15,000 square feet, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated however, the suggestions requires the Applicant /Appellant to put at risk the 2,610 square foot building. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated the Applicant/ Appellant can move forward with the entire project, except that the building might have to be demolished in the future; the General Plan [update] process should be completed; Council should not set precedence for other properties. Councilmember Kerr stated tearing down the building, which is destine for document storage, might be detrimental to the neighborhood; hopefully, Design Review will help. Speaker Floyd Hibbits suggested that a proviso be included to allow use of the building for 10 to 15 years; stated the scenario would allow everyone see how the General Plan [update] works out and what occurs during the interim period. Mayor Appezzato stated there is a solution available to the company; hopefully, the business can co -exist with the residential neighborhood; the issue tonight was whether 3,070 additional square feet should be allowed for office space. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (01 -093) Councilmember Johnson moved that the meeting be extended past midnight. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 19 February 20, 2001 Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (01 -094) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's decision denying Variance, V -99 -15 and Major Design Review, DR- 99 -88, for a third story addition on a single family residence with a maximum height of 30 feet; and related Resolution. The site is located at 2901 San Jose Avenue within the R -1, Single Family Residence Zoning District. Applicant /Appellant: Allen Gravelle; and (01 -094A) Resolution No. 13319, "Approving the Appeal of Allen Gravelle and Overturning the Planning Board Denial of Variance, V- 00-15 and Major Design Review DR -99 -88 for 2901 San Jose Avenue." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato announced that the following people had to leave, but wanted to state that they were in favor of the Applicant /Appellant: Proponents Robert Noel, Alameda; Mark Ferro, Alameda; Susan Neff, Alameda; and Fred Hollister, Alameda. Jerry Cormack, Planning Department Development Review Manager, gave a brief overview of the matter; stated in 1994, a Variance and Design Review were approved for said property; at that point in time, the Bungalow House was raised four feet to add a new first floor; it resulted in a three bedroom, 2 1� bath home of approximately 1,940 square feet, including a two -car garage, master bedroom suite, and family room; the proposal before Council is a request for an additional Variance and Design Review to add a third story to the two -story residence; the proposed addition would include 2 bedrooms and a bath, resulting in a 5 bedroom, 3 1� bath residence of approximately 2,369 square feet; the average house size in the vicinity of this home is approximately 1,250 square feet, and a Variance is required for the addition of the third story and construction within the required setbacks. The Planning Board conducted a Public Hearing on December 11, 2000 and acted to deny the requested Variances and Design Review based upon the findings and the resolution in the City Council Packet; specifically, the Planning Board found that a three -story residence was not a property right generally enjoyed by properties within the R -1 District, that the third story would adversely effect adjacent properties, and that the proposed roof line change and design would Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 0 February 20, 2001 not be consistent with the character of the existing house. Mayor Appezzato inquired current height. Mr. Cormack responded the current height is just under 30 feet, and it would be raised to approximately 30 feet; the house would be within the height limit. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents Charles Lopez, Alameda (submitted a legal opinion by former City Attorney Carter Stroud, dated September 25, 1985.); Ronald Tasse, Alameda; Jerome Harrison, Alameda; Len Grzanka, Alameda; and Rachael Fisher, Alameda. Opponent Janelle Spatz, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (RAPS). Loretta Ferro - Gravelle, Applicant's spouse, stated a number of people are enlarging homes in Alameda; there are numerous three - story homes that are mixed amongst smaller houses, especially in R- 1 zones; diversity of architecture makes Alameda unique in character; it is common for property owners to change their homes to suit their lifestyles, e.g. 2936 Gibbons Drive; RAPS sent an insulting letter calling their house an eyesore; construction is still underway, siding like the original structure will be added; a lot of time and money was spent to add charm and character to the design; the issue is allowing use of the space in the attic for a growing family; only 2 feet, 8 inches are being requested to bring the house to 30 feet. Allen Gravelle, Applicant /Appellant, stated that he has lived in his present house since 1967; Assistant City Attorney David Brandt told him to compare his plans with homes in the R -1 zones in Alameda; a comparison was done of two of the six R -1 zones, and there are over 180 four - story, three -story and two -story homes with basements; explained they (Gravelles) could not enjoy the right of a basement due to high watertable; submitted and described activity reports and photos of several remodeled homes that enjoy attic space; stated that he believes the three findings necessary for the Variance have been made; the Planning Board already has approved the first finding, the second finding could be made because a basement cannot be put in, per contractor's advice, and the third finding will be met because the neighbors do not find the project injurious or detrimental, and the house will not stand out as the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 21 February 20, 2001 largest home in the neighborhood; the Planning Department already has given approval, in a roundabout way, to third floors in the R -1 zone; and that his request is within reason and he hopes the Council will support it. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there had been other objections in addition to the RAPS. The Development Review Manager responded in the negative. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he received one letter in objection to the project; he is not concerned so much about the height; there are houses in the area that are taller and fit in well; he is not too worried about the mixed use; in his opinion, the third story is not that critical; what bothers him is the appearance of the property, the house itself; the AAPS is alluding to that [concern]; questioned who is doing the designing and the work; stated it appears the 1994 plans are still being done; questioned what the [final] appearance would be like and when the work would be done. Mr. Gravelle explained there had been several setbacks with the original contractor during phase one; work began in the spring of 1995, approval was in the fall of 1994; a seismic engineer provided a five -page report on things done wrong; it took a year to get the contractor back out to do repairs; the contractor advised him to get another contractor; contractors do not like to complete another contractor's work, so they [ Gravelles] decided to tackle the work themselves; work was done only on the weekends; they are doing financially well at this point and want to get the property completed by an outside contractor; two contractors have already bid on the addition in the attic; the roof must be redesigned and portions of it removed; roof work must be done in a fast manner; the Architect has tried to incorporate dormers similar to ones in the neighborhood; trim moldings will go in place to bring back the character of the Craftsman; and [there will be] borders around the corners of the house, as before. Councilmember Daysog stated it is impressive to see the number of neighbors who signed the petition [in support of the project], it is a great indication of neighborhood support; and more impressive is the [number of] Gravelle's friends and neighbors in the Council Chambers at such a late hour; it is a true demonstration of friendship and good neighborliness. Councilmember Johnson stated that she admires what Mr. Gravelle is trying to do with his house; however, in this case, she cannot make findings for a Variance; the Planning Board's decision was unanimous; the Board deals with these issues a lot more than the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 22 February 20, 2001 City Council; and she would like to make a motion. Mr. Gravelle stated that when he was before the Planning Board, he was told by the City Planning Department he could only compare homes within his immediate neighborhood; the information regarding other three -story homes was not given before the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson stated there is no specific rule on what needs to be compared for granting a Variance; the most relevant homes to compare it with, are homes near your home; there are differences in neighborhoods; those are the most relevant, but that is not to say that the Planning Board cannot consider other homes; the Planning Board has a fairly vast knowledge of the residential areas of the City and would have taken other 3 -story homes in the R -1 district into consideration; that she hates to say you cannot do what you want to with your house; however, the City does have Zoning Ordinances and requirements to grant Variances; that she cannot grant a Variance in this case, and agrees with the Planning Board [decision]. Councilmember Johnson moved Council support the Planning Board. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated it is an interesting situation, it poses a kind of catch 22; Mr. Gravelle is at a point where he wants to go out with professional services to improve the appearance and accomplish other tasks; the project probably looks fine to the neighbors; questioned whether Mr. Gravelle would be able to get the professional contractors that he desires to work with if the Variance is not granted; stated it seems to be a catch 22 situation. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would have a difficult time voting for a Variance for further construction when existing construction has not been completed; other people in that neighborhood are anxious to see the existing project completed. Mr. Gravelle stated new contractors advised construction work should start at the attic and work down. Vice Mayor DeWitt inquired whether the RAPS reviewed the design. Ms. Spatz responded in the affirmative; stated that there is asbestos insulation; RAPS main concern is that the first addition was never completed and is an eyesore. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated there are other properties in the neighborhood which are 30 feet high. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 3 February 20, 2001 Ms. Spatz noted 2905 San Jose Avenue is completely overshadowed, and stated that she believes Mr. Gravelle owns said property. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he could support the Appeal, if the work is acceptable to RAPS. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the property was on an historical study list. Ms. Spatz responded in the negative; stated there are Craftsman Bungalows that are two stories [high] with attics and basements and it would be wonderful if the house could look like one of the larger, original -built bungalows. Councilmember Daysog stated that it did not seem AAPS's claim is that the project would be utter destruction of a Craftsman Bungalow. Ms. Spatz responded Mr. Gravelle should complete the project as it looks on the plans, and in a timely manner. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether RAPS would have approved the current project if the first renovation had been completed, to which Ms. Spatz responded there would have been a chance. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the project would meet RAPS standards, if done tastefully. Ms. Spatz responded probably so. Mayor Appezzato inquired what the prognosis is on finishing the home. Mr. Gravelle responded that he wants to contract the work out, and he has the funds to do so at this point in time; delays, in part, were due to a burglary of tools valued over $10,000; he wants to work with the RAPS on features or adds to make house more Craftsman; he has worked with the Planning Department, the Planning Department wants double -hung windows, specific molding that matches the upper case, an intact front porch.. certain things that he worked out to keep the Craftsman integrity; he is more than willing to work with anyone to get the project done. Mayor Appezzato inquired when the project would be done. Mr. Gravelle responded in 6 to 8 months, from top to finish. Councilmember Kerr seconded Councilmember Johnson's motion to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 24 February 20, 2001 uphold the Planning Board's decision [deny Variance]. Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated Council is clear on the issues and the catch 22's; what it comes down to is Mr. Gravelle has given much in the service of his country, his neighbors recognize that; it is worth breaking through the catch 22's and doing the opposite from what is recommended. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he is willing to give Mr. Gravelle a chance if limits, times and requirements are given, and the Appellant works with the RAPS; he supports 6 months, one year or whatever it takes to get the project done, but not a long time. Councilmember Johnson inquired about further Design Review, to which the Planning Director responded the matter before Council is both a Variance and the Design Review. Councilmember Johnson, stated, for clarification purposes, there will be no further design review. The Planning Director stated staff works very hard to help people realize their dreams; e.g. Variances, Permits. Mr. Gravelle already went through one to lift the house and add a whole story underneath. The findings are very difficult, findings could be made that there are extraordinary physical circumstances because the lot is particularly small. The next finding is the one that is difficult: Applicant will be deprived of a property right generally enjoyed by other people. A third story is not regarded as a general property right. The Gravelles have a house that is significant, it is a good sized home with three bedrooms and two baths, and that is where Planning and the Planning Board struggled. If approved, staff will ensure the design details are carried through. The struggle has been regarding the property right. There are three -story houses in the immediate neighborhood and throughout the R -1 area with many legal non - conforming homes going back to the Victorians. If the Council is going to move forward, it would be helpful to have some comments about the property right. Councilmember Johnson stated one of the Ordinances; findings are required to grant are not made to grant Variances, then the be amended to allow three stories in a R -1 Planning Board and staff looked at it, and at it. issues is the Zoning Variances; if findings �oning Ordinances should [area]; that is how the how Council should look Councilmember Kerr stated it would be hard to make findings of extraordinary necessity because the Applicant has not covered the fully allowable footprint; Mr. Gravelle has not met the maximum lot Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 5 February 20, 2001 coverage allowed in that zoning; Applicant could expand on the footprint without requiring a Variance; it is very difficult to make a finding of extraordinary need to go up, instead of sideways. Councilmember Daysog stated that with respect to findings, there are two sets of issues; the first set looks at the findings themselves; in this case, there are three issues that the Planning Board and staff looked at, which are all very important; for him it comes down to prioritization of findings; the fact that the neighbors support the project, that it is not utterly destroying the historic character of a building and not on an historical list, is great; the greatest [finding] is the neighbors' support. The second set of issues, in regard to findings, is looking at a whole range of issues, de novo; Council is not limited to the findings of either the Planning Board or staff. Councilmember Johnson stated legally, the Council must make findings to grant a Variance, otherwise Zoning Ordinances are useless. Councilmember Daysog responded that is the reason for the first set of issues, prioritization of findings. Councilmember Johnson stated it was not a matter of prioritization; Council needs to make all three findings to grant the Variance. Mr. Gravelle noted the home on Gibbons Drive that the City Planning Department is recommending be granted 38 feet and a Variance for setbacks and third floor, is much larger than his home. Rachel Fisher, Alameda, stated the Council has to find significant findings to grant the Variance; a moment ago Ms. Spatz stated that had the Gravelles completed the first project, AAPS probably would have supported the second Variance; and she does not understand. The City Attorney stated the decision is the City Council's, contrary to what the previous speaker stated; the Council must make three findings in order to grant a Variance; the three findings are: 1) there are extraordinary circumstances applying to the property relating to the physical constraints of the parcel, such as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings. Council then must list a reason. 2) Because of extraordinary circumstances, the literal enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance standards would result in practical difficulty or an unnecessary hardship, such as to deprive the Applicant of a substantial property right possessed by other owners of the property in the same district. Council must fill in a reason. 3) The granting of the Variance under the circumstances of the particular case will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to persons or property in the vicinity. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 6 February 20, 2001 The Council must fill in the reason. The three required findings need to be made and are required by the Alameda Municipal Code for the granting of any Variance. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he believes the Council has the circumstances to allow the Variance; the property [owner] is asking for a third story, which seems to be the area Council is addressing; the third story is inside; when you look at the blueprint, it is only a two -story building, the third story is reached from the inside; there is no outward appearance [of the proposed third story]. The Planning Director stated there is not a third story, there is an attic; the roof line will be substantially changed in order to accommodate the third story; the building will be increased by two and one -half feet and the roof line will be completely reconstructed. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the house [under discussion] is a two - story building with an [proposed] addition to two and one -half feet up; the third story does not appear to be that earthshaking; there are three -story Victorians up and down the street, a large number are on corners; three -story Victorians are not an odd thing in the City; there is one on San Jose Avenue; that he presumes the person [property owner] has a property right to have a stairwell in his second story that goes up to thirty feet; staff is calling it a third story, he is calling it a way into the attic; it [denial of Variance] causes a hardship on the Applicant because he is attempting to finish the other areas of which it [addition of two and one -half feet] is part of the same design. Mayor Appezzato stated there was a motion and a second to the motion to uphold the Planning Board [decision] and reject the Appeal; that he is very torn on which way to go on said matter; the house is bulky and has not been finished, he wants to give some benefit of the doubt; if there are not three votes to uphold the Planning Board decision, Council will decide where to go with the next vote. On the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Johnson and Kerr - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Mayor Appezzato stated that he would support giving the Applicant an opportunity to go forward if he [Applicant] is willing to work with the RAPS closely and get its concurrence. Mr. Gravelle responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 27 February 20, 2001 Vice Mayor DeWitt moved that Council 1) approve the Variance with the stipulations expressed [during discussion], and 2) allow the Project to go forward, with the caveat Applicant work with the RAPS. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether Vice Mayor DeWitt was willing to put a time limit on the work. Vice Mayor DeWitt responded in the affirmative; stated the work should be done in a timely manner. The Planning Director stated the Council will delegate to staff the ability to make the findings; Planning will work with the City Attorney's Office to prepare the required findings. There will be the typical conditions of approval; the Construction and the Building Permit Plans must be consistent with Exhibit [and] in compliance with the Uniform Building Code. There should be a Planning inspection prior to final Building inspection to make sure project is consistent with the Plans: hold harmless, time periods, e.g. design review valid for six months, Variance is valid for a year; signed acknowledgment of the Conditions. Final Design Review is the point staff would work with the RAPS and the Applicant to work on the details, e.g. original character and quality of the structure. Secondly, the timing of construction should be part of the issuance. A schedule should be established so the Applicant can demonstrate his ability to move forward and complete the construction. The Resolution would include those conditions and the Council's discussion tonight. Mayor Appezzato stated that he may live to regret what he is doing tonight; he hoped the Applicant does not add to that regret. A number of people who live in the neighborhood state they are not going to complain about the final design; Council hopes that the design, together with the RAPS, is one that everybody can be pleased [with] and proves that three [members] of the Council were correct; and that he is sure the entire Council wants the Applicant to succeed. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. On the call for question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Johnson and Kerr - 2. (01 -095) Ordinance No. 2854, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article 27 -3 (Citywide Development Fees) to Chapter XXVII (Development Fees) Establishing a Citywide Development Fee." Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 28 February 20, 2001 Finally passed. Councilmember Daysog moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (01 -096) Ordinance No. 2855, "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 12 -4.18 (Use of City Employee Lots as Public Parking During Non - Business Hours) to Article I (Parking Lots) of Chapter XII (Designated Parking) , Thereof, Authorizing the City Manager to Designate Use of City Employee Lots as Public Parking During Non - Business Hours." Finally passed. Councilmember Johnson moved final passage of the Ordinance. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (01 -097) Plato Wong, Alameda, son of Peter Wong, Encinal Terminals, stated no one fights harder for the City than the Councilmembers and those who attend Council Meetings. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (01 -098) Mayor Appezzato stated that he has received a number of letters regarding the Island Paradise Club; requested staff to advise the Council of options. (01 -099) Mayor Appezzato requested a presentation by Alameda Power & Telecom regarding the energy crisis, including the possibility of creating additional power plants in the future. (01 -100) Mayor Appezzato requested the City Manager to review whether the City should acquire a lobbyist; stated the cities of San Leandro and Newark, AC Transit and Alameda County Transportation Authority all have lobbyists; Council should decide whether the City should have a lobbyist. (01 -101) Councilmember Kerr stated volunteers at the Animal Shelter have provided a list of concerns which she will forward to the City Manager; requested the matter be reviewed, including cost and feasibility. (01 -102) Vice Mayor DeWitt thanked Councilmember Daysog for initiating a meeting to address traffic and pedestrian safety; stated it was an excellent meeting. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 9 February 20, 2001 (01 -103) Councilmember Daysog thanked City staff and volunteers for assisting with the traffic and pedestrian safety meeting [held on February 15, 2001]. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 1:13 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 0 February 20, 2001