Loading...
2004-08-03 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - AUGUST 3, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 11:58 p.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. Absent: None. (04 -390) Councilmember Kerr moved approval of addressing the remaining agenda items after midnight. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. AGENDA CHANGES (04 -391) Ed Murphy, Alameda, requested that discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance [paragraph no. 04 -409] be removed from Council Communications and placed on the regular agenda. Mayor Johnson stated that placing the item [discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance] under Council Communications was correct; requested the City Attorney provide an explanation. The City Attorney responded that Council could make a motion to direct the item be placed on a future agenda; the City Manager developed a process for Council to place matters on the agenda. Councilmember Kerr stated the process is a bad system. Mayor Johnson stated that the item could be placed on a future agenda. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he wanted the item placed on the regular agenda for action. (04 -392) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the Social Services and Human Relations Board to continue exploration of a Sister City [paragraph no. 04 -393] would be heard first. REGULAR AGENDA (04 -393) Recommendation to authorize the Social Services and Human Relations Board to continue exploration of a Sister City /Friendship City organization and to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 August 3, 2004 officials of Wu Xi, China. Stuwart Chen, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) and Jim Franz, SSHRB, presented gifts from the Mayor of Wu Xi. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Johnson announced that the resolution approving Parcel Map 8321 [paragraph no. 04 -399] was removed from the consent calendar for discussion. Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the consent calendar. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *04 -394) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting of July 20, 2004. Approved. ( *04 -395) Recommendation to accept the work of Priority Roofing Solutions for the City Hall West roof replacement, No. P.W. 12 -02- 19. Accepted. ( *04 -396) Recommendation to approve Consultant Agreement in the amount of $180,000 to CH2MHill for Feasibility and Scoping Study of the I -880 Broadway- Jackson Street Interchange Improvements Project. Accepted. ( *04 -397) Recommendation to approve $68,000 from the Commercial Revitalization Fund balance and authorize execution of a Commercial Revitalization Reimbursement Agreement with Alameda Marketplace in the amount of $68,000 for extraordinary utility upgrade costs. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 August 3, 2004 ( *04 -398) Recommendation to appoint Sherri Stieg and a Planning Board representative as the representatives to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and to appoint a Planning Board representative as the alternate. Accepted. (04 -399) Resolution No. 13753, "Approving a Parcel Map (PM 8321) and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Advancing California's Emerging Technologies (ACET) Parcel." Adopted. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is voting against adoption of the resolution because ACET is requesting an extension of the construction starting date; ACET wants the City to give them a couple of million dollars worth of property; doing so would be imprudent. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. ( *04 -400) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 2806 and Granting a Five -Year Extension of Non - Exclusive Cable Television Franchise to Alameda Bureau of Electricity DBA Alameda Power and Telecom. Introduced. ( *04- 401) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 2 -17 (Establishing a Commission on Disability Issues) to Chapter II (Administration). Introduced; and ( *04 -401A) Recommendation to accept Amended Bylaws and dissolve the Mayor's Committee on Disability Issues. Accepted. ( *04 -402) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,323,840.71. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (04 -403) Public Hearing to consider the formation of a new Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street; and (04 -403A) Resolution No. 13754, "Establishing a New Underground District, Number 29, on Lincoln Avenue from Oak Street to Park Street." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the resolution. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 August 3, 2004 Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04 -404) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family Residential Zoning District. The development project includes expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding 480); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Subsection 30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height. The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance, subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita Mohlen. [Continued to August 17, 2004.1 (04 -405) New Main Library Project update. The Project Manager submitted a handout and gave a brief update on the Library Project; stated the one bid received was $4.63 million over budget; all bidders who attended the pre -bid meeting were interviewed; contractors were either too busy or could not meet the pre - qualification requirements; the architect was responsible for the construction estimate; the Office of Library Construction (OLC) advised him that bids throughout the State are significantly over budget. Mayor Johnson inquired what the construction estimate was, to which the Project Manager responded $14.6; $1 million was added for the parking structure; the bidder, SJ Amoroso, developed a $3.5 million value engineering cost savings list. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired what value engineering meant, to which the Project Manager responded it is a review process to determine where costs could be cut. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 August 3, 2004 Mayor Johnson inquired whether SJ Amoroso found $3.5 million in cost reductions, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that SJ Amoroso is willing to negotiate through an open book process detailing costs and markups; options are: 1) accept the $20 million bid, 2) redesign and rebid the project, or 3) negotiate a better price with SJ Amoroso. Mayor Johnson inquired whether working with the architect and SJ Amoroso was an option. The Project Manager responded a collaborative effort between the contractor, architect, and City staff is feasible; there is a time constraint of 60 days [from the July 21 bid date] to award the contract. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the OLC would accept the parking area as a flat parking lot and not demand the extra spaces that would have been provided by the Hom building, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the flat parking lot could endanger the project, to which the Project Manager responded in the negative. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Library should be built as designed and as the community has desired; inquired what is being given up in the $3.5 million savings and who has reviewed the $20.3 million overall cost. The Project Manager responded that the $20.3 million cost appears to be fair; rebidding could result in a higher bid due to inflation. Mayor Johnson inquired what types of changes could be made with the $3.5 million savings, to which the Project Manager responded anything from foundation to roof changes; SJ Amoroso has proposed redesign of the foundation and access flooring. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that SJ Amoroso's options should be reviewed with a different eye. The Project Manager stated that the option assessment would be a collaborative effort between the architect, construction manager and City staff. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether an independent eye reviewed the $14.6 estimate to ensure that the figure was a correct and whether Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 August 3, 2004 the discussion tonight would be occurring if the estimate was $19 million, to which the Project Manager responded there would have been a redesign effort prior to bidding if the estimate had been $19 million. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Ophiem -Lewis missed the mark by $4.6 million, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Ophiem -Lewis was paid, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was hesitant to involve someone who might not knowing what they are doing; that he would rather have known that $20 million was the ballpark figure rather than finding out now. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether value engineering changes would need the State Architect approval, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether time would be lost by submitting the flat parking lot and valued engineering changes, to which the Project Manager responded the changes are separate items; the flat parking lot could be instituted in conjunction with a budget amendment. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Project Manager was requesting direction tonight, to which the Project Manager responded that he was requesting Council consensus. Mayor Johnson inquired what the best option was, to which the Project Manager stated that he could provide Council with a report outlining options and recommendations; cautioned there is a 60 -day period; SJ Amoroso indicated it would only give a 10 -day extension after the 60 -day period. The Acting City Manager stated the architect sent a letter questioning whether receipt of one bid constituted a competitive bid. Mayor Johnson stated that the architect helped the City draft the parameters and qualifications, which could be the reason why more bids were not received. The Acting City Manager stated the City needs the architect to work with SJ Amoroso and City staff. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 August 3, 2004 Councilmember Matarrese noted that the architect works for the City; stated Council should have received the report prior to the meeting; requested an updated budget; stated a decision should not be made tonight; if necessary, a special meeting should be called; the project will be more expensive than estimated in March. The Project Manager noted staff provided the report to Council tonight to provide timely information. Mayor Johnson stated that staff should provide Council with the report prior to the meeting and provide an update at the meeting, if necessary. Councilmember Gilmore stated that the City is in a bind; going through the negotiated contract route poses a problem with the architect and the one bid issue; the redesign and rebid process takes time; rebid would result in construction being done during the rainy season. Councilmember Matarrese requested Council be provided a report outlining the advantages and disadvantages of each option immediately. The Acting City Manager stated that staff would provide Council with a report by the end of the week. Ty Frye, Turnkey Forces, stated that the pre - qualification was irregular; qualifications were due after bid submittal; contractors were reluctant to invest time and effort to bid the project without being pre - qualified; any proposals could be valued engineered; value engineering can be done after the bid is awarded; deductions can be made throughout the project; deferred approvals can be done on different parts of the project; the project could be rebid within two weeks if the pre - qualifications were reworded in the standard way. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a need to go out to bid again, to which Mr. Frye responded that the project could go out to bid within one or two weeks. Councilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of standard versus non - standard qualifications. Mr. Frye stated that an addendum to a project is due 72 hours before bid day. The Project Manager stated that the post - qualification process was Legal Counsel's recommendation. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 August 3, 2004 In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry about standard versus non - standard qualifications, the Project Manager stated the pre - qualification process is where the contractors submit qualifications prior to the bid; the pool is limited to contractors judged as qualified; a post - qualification process allows anyone to bid on the project; qualifications were clearly delineated; the assumption was made that bidders would read the qualification process; the qualification section of the bid document can be revised and sent back out. Vice Mayor Daysog requested another set of eyes be included in the review. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Project Manager was opposed to rebidding the project, to which the Project Manager responded that there is a significant time advantage in not rebidding; competitors have said that SJ Amoroso is a fine organization. The consensus of the Council was to have staff provide a report detailing the pros and cons of each option by the end of the week. (04 -406) Recommendation to address financial support to Alameda Unified School District in the Fiscal Year 2004 -05 budget. Councilmember Kerr stated that she was concerned the report only addressed $450,000 in support items and not the entire $1.1 million. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would not want to stop funding any items listed; that he supports funding police at Alameda Unified School District events; sporting events take place without incident; the City should not be liable for someone getting hurt on an improperly maintained softball or hardball field. Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council wanted to address the entire $1.1 million in funding, not only General Fund items; other items come from non - General Fund categories; many departments made loo cuts which could potentially impact services. Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated Council was to be provided with an entire list to review. Mayor Johnson moved approval of placing review of entire $1.1 million in support of Alameda Unified School District on September 7, 2004 agenda. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 August 3, 2004 Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04 -407) Recommendation to authorize fuel surcharge on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service. Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was any feedback from ferry riders. The Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that he received 22 emails from Harbor Bay and Alameda /Oakland ferry riders; staff did ride - alongs for three days on the Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service. Councilmember Kerr inquired what the response were, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded that during the ride - alongs, two riders did not object to the fare increase but thought there would be a decrease in ridership; 18 riders understood the reason for the increase; all emails were positive. Mayor Johnson stated that said information should have been included in the report. Councilmember Kerr stated including the information would have allowed the public to review it online. The Public Works Director noted that there was a timing issue; reports were due two days after the last Council meeting; feedback was not received until after reports were due. Mayor Johnson inquired to whom the reports were due, to which the Public Works Director responded the City Manager's office. Mayor Johnson stated that Council needs to receive updates. Councilmember Kerr inquired why there was a 25 -cent, one -way fare increase for seniors but not for student - teacher chaperone fares, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded that the school program has been offered for years; every year the District has less money to enjoy the benefit of the program. Councilmember Kerr stated that the City and ferry system have less money too; that she is tired of hearing that the School District is the only one short of money; requesting the School District to bear the same increase as seniors is not too much to ask. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the staff recommendation with Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 August 3, 2004 revising the language to have the rate increase apply to the student /teacher rates. Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (04 -408) Appeal of the Transportation Technical Team's Decision regarding abatement of cited vehicles and trailers at 1617 Central Avenue. The Public Works Director stated that the appellant was noticed; the Police Department has indicated that only one of the vehicles is registered. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether there was still problem, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the appeal. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Daysog - 1. Note: Vice Mayor Daysog left the dais at 1:02 a.m. and returned at 1:05 p.m.] ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (04 -409) Discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance. Pat Bail, Alameda, urged consideration of Vice Mayor Daysog's suggestion to eliminate the Ordinance; stated an additional ordinance to accommodate work /live in historic buildings should be presented to the community; concurred with Councilmember Kerr regarding the agenda change process. Mayor Johnson inquired what the Council's options are on the matter, to which the City Attorney responded that Council could provide direction, information, vote to bring the matter back for discussion, or provide comments on Vice Mayor Daysog's email; that Council could not introduce an ordinance tonight. Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with bringing the matter back to Council for discussion; if Council had handled the ordinance differently in 1997, the recent work /live project would not have been as controversial; the ordinance passed with a 3 -2 vote; Measure A was a voter initiated grassroots effort; there have Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 August 3, 2004 been arguments that work /live is not living; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Daysog concerning the need to review the northern waterfront; past Council's intention was to preserve historic buildings; preservation methods are not limited to work /live; Council should identify buildings to preserve; Council should review the economically feasible options; a similar ballot measure in 1991 did not pass; the community may feel differently now. Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether that was the consensus of the Council. Councilmember Kerr stated that she would support having the matter brought back to Council; that Council should add historical context language. Mayor Johnson stated that economic feasibility for businesses should be addressed. Councilmember Kerr stated that Council action should address 1) eliminating the ordinance, 2) sending the ordinance to the voters, 3) addressing economic development of the buildings, and 4) preserving the historical buildings along the northern waterfront. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the later two are Council's responsibility; Council should be leaders to promote and propose economic development and preserve historic buildings; the question is whether Council wants the ordinance or not; presenting the ordinance to voters is not a problem; times change and issues need to be revisited; he supports bringing the matter back to Council. Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have a count of how many buildings fall under the existing work /live ordinance and how many are on the historical building study list or the historical monument list. In response to Councilmember Gilmore's comments, the Planning Supervisor stated that she has a map outlining the buildings; there are buildings that are clearly residential even though they are in commercial, industrial districts; desire to change the buildings to an industrial use is unlikely because of costs; buildings that are on the historic building study list and the one City monument [Del Monte Building] are noted on the map. The Acting City Manager stated that discussion of the Work /Live Ordinance could be placed on a future agenda; staff would prepare a report identifying Council's questions; Council's questions regarding economic and redevelopment go beyond work /live; buildings Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 August 3, 2004 within the redevelopment area could be given priority incentives; the private sector could provide suggestions. Mayor Johnson stated that possible business use and associated costs should be reviewed. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he was happy to see initiation of consistency between ordinances and the Charter. Councilmember Kerr stated that Council needs to consider when an ordinance is approved by a Council 3 -2 vote and not by the voters; there may be enterprising people who persuade the Council into moving the boundary considerably west. The Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to Council in September. Councilmember Kerr stated the matter should be brought back as a very broad agenda item. (04 -410) Consideration of placing the telephone fee for public safety on the November 2004 ballot. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that citizens want to have a say on the fee; Friday is the deadline for placing matters on the November ballot; he would like to have the fee placed on the ballot. The Acting City Manager stated that the fee has not been determined; the adopted budget assumes $1.4 million in revenue from the fee over the next year. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the fee was $2.00, to which the Finance Director responded that the exact number of landlines have been received; a $2 fee will not generate $1.4 million; the fee needs to be approximately $2.75. Mayor Johnson inquired whether the number of cell phones was determined, to which the Finance Director responded in the negative. Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to make an educated estimate on the number of fell phones rather than having a fee that is higher than necessary. The Acting City Manager stated that estimating the number of cell phones would be an eleventh hour guess; the fees are dedicated to the 911 center. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 August 3, 2004 Councilmember Kerr inquired into the number of landlines, to which the Finance Director responded 34,964. Councilmember Kerr stated that she has a problem with charging for the first line, which is a lifeline. Mayor Johnson stated there should be a budget update prior to implementing the fee; placing the fee on the ballot puts the City in a difficult situation. Councilmember Gilmore stated that there is an adopted budget which assumes $1.4 million in revenue; citizens may decide they do not value emergency services and vote against it; positions which were to be covered by the $1.4 million would need to remain unfounded if the matter were placed on the ballot. The Finance Director stated that two dispatch positions would be the only new item that could be placed on hold. Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the police and firefighter positions would be paid by the fee, to which the Finance Director responded that the positions would not be paid with the $1.4 million. Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would be reluctant to freeze the dispatch positions; inquired whether a scenario provides for an advisory vote. The City Attorney responded if Council chooses to place the fee on the ballot, the recommended approach would be to have two measures; the problem is that the specific fee amount is unknown. Councilmember Gilmore stated there is a consensus to place the fee on the ballot; however, the information cannot be presented in time to place the fee on the ballot. Mayor Johnson stated that Council does not have accurate information; voters cannot be asked to vote on a guess. Councilmember Kerr inquired what the $1.4 million would cover, to which the Finance Director responded 500 of the total dispatch center costs. Councilmember Matarrese stated that the funds are already in the budget; inquired whether revenue from the fee would free up $1.4 million to be used elsewhere, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 13 August 3, 2004 Vice Mayor Daysog stated that residents should vote on the fee. Mayor Johnson stated that she concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog; however, Council should not place something on the ballot without an accurate fee. Vice Mayor Daysog stated a rate was established to project $1.4 million in revenue when the budget was adopted. Mayor Johnson stated that the City could not determine the rate because of lack of information on cell phone lines. Councilmember Matarrese stated that two months ago, the City did know the number. Mayor Johnson stated that the number was an estimate. Councilmember Gilmore stated the budget assumes $1.4 million in revenue from the fee; unless the Council enacts the ordinance, the City would lose $1.4 million in revenues; the budget needs to be brought back to Council; how the State budget impacts the City needs to be reviewed. Vice Mayor Daysog stated that it is odd to have adopted the budget without knowing the rate to be charged. Mayor Johnson stated that the City was dependant on receiving information from phone companies. The Finance Director requested Council to clarify the request for bringing the budget back. Councilmember Kerr responded detailed information on the loo cuts should be provided. The Finance Director stated that there is an August 17 agenda item which would accomplish the request; she will confer with the Assistant City Manager. Councilmember Gilmore requested information on how the adopted State budget affects the City's budget. Councilmember Matarrese stated that there may be a need for a special meeting; that he wants to receive information prior to the meeting. Mayor Johnson suggested that the meeting be scheduled for early September. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 14 August 3, 2004 (04 -411) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board. Not heard. (04 -412) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (4) for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Mayor Johnson nominated George Humphreys for reappointment and Suzanne Storar for appointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Commission. (04 -413) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Housing Commission. Mayor Johnson nominated Cookie Robes -Wong for appointment to the Housing Commission. (04 -414) Councilmember Kerr provided a handout showing Section 8 rental availability throughout the City. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the regular meeting at 1:46 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 15 August 3, 2004