Loading...
1998-09-01 Special and Regular CC MinutesSPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 - - 7:00 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m. Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-473) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator: Human Resources Director and Austris Rungis; Employee Organizations: Alameda Police Officers Association - APOA, United Public Employees Association #790 (Police Technicians). Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that the City Council gave instructions to the City's negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m. ectfully submitted, Di ne B. glsc City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 SPECIAL MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL TUESDAY - - - SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 - - - 7:15 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Absent: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider: (98-473A) Conference with Rea]. Property Negotiator; Property: Property located at the Northwest corner of Lincoln Avenue and Oak Street, Alameda, CA; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda and TOSCO Oil; Under Negotiation: price and terms of payment. Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened and the Mayor announced that the City Council gave instructions to the City's negotiators. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Di. B. felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 eir"' MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -SEPTEMBER 1, 1998- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting of the City Council at 7:48 p.m. and announced that Council met in Closed Session; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council gave instructions to the City's negotiators; regarding Real Property Negotiations, Council gave instructions on the property [located at the northwest corner of Lincoln and Oak Street] to the City's negotiators. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. Father Michael Lacey, St. Philip Neri Church gave the Invocation. ROLL CALL - PRESENT: ABSENT: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas and Mayor Appezzato - 5. None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (98-474) Presentation by Representatives from the Aircraft Carrier USS Hornet Foundation regarding the opening of the Aircraft Carrier USS Hornet to the Public. Jerry Lutz gave an update on the opening of the USS Hornet Aircraft Carrier; discussed the phases of development; and informed Council of future plans for the Hornet. (98-475) Councilmember Kerr announced that the new 1-880 off-ramp at Union and 5th Streets in Oakland will open in two weeks and will benefit West End residents and businesses. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Lucas moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] (*98-476) Recommendation to accept the work of AAP Concrete for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Concrete Sidewalk Grinding, Curb, Gutter and Driveway for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1998, No. P.W. 06-97-12. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 (*98-477) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $71,870 to McGuire & Hester for Maintenance Service Center Urban Runoff Control Project, No. P.W. 06-98-15. Accepted. (*98-478) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,426,968.72. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (98-479) Resolution No. 13036, "Appointing John H. Teetsov as a Member of the City Planning Board." Adopted. Councilmember Lucas moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The Clerk administered the Oath and presented Mr. Teetsov with a Certificate of Appointment. (98-480) Resolution No. 13037, "Reappointing Connie R. Wendling as a Member of the City Golf Commission. Adopted. Councilmember Lucas moved adoption of the Resolution. Vice Mayor DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. The Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Wendling with a Certificate of Reappointment. (98-481) Public Hearing to consider Appeal of William B. Taylor and Cynthia Marsch-Taylor of the Planning Board's approval of Design Review, DR-98-16: 2613/2619 Santa Clara Avenue, to allow addition of three residential units in two buildings to a 1.5 acre site bordered by Santa Clara Avenue and Broadway Avenue, which is already developed with 23 dwelling units. Applicant: Edward and Madlyn Murphy; and (98-481A) Resolution No, 13038, "Sustaining Approval by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda Granting Major Design Review, DR-98-16, for Construction of Three Dwelling Units and Modification of a Fourth Unit; and Provision of Additional Parking at 2613 and 2619 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, Edward and Madlyn Murphy." Adopted. The Planning Director gave a background review; stated the matter before Council is an appeal by neighbors who live next door to the proposed project located at the northeast corner of Broadway and Santa Clara Avenue; the property is 1.5 acres; there are 12 buildings on the site with a total of 23 units; two tennis courts are located at the center of the site; there is also a 1/2 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 basketball court and a swimming pool; the proposal is to add a second floor unit to an existing building for a total of two units in the building, and to build a completely new building with two units located to the rear of 2615, 2617, and 2619 Santa Clara Avenue; the Planning Board held two Hearings; the Board, staff and neighbors reviewed issues of open space, adequacy of parking, the design of the units, and privacy between the proposed units and existing units; there is a current deficiency of 25 parking spaces; after project completion, there would still be a deficiency of 25 spaces; the proposed building is to be located on existing parking which would be covered over; the plan submitted by the applicant would develop new parking at other sites to compensate; the existing basketball court would be converted to parking; there would be six new parking spaces for the parking needs of the three new units; to preserve the privacy along the boundary of the property, [the Planning Board] improved the landscaping, relocated a balcony, and changed windows; neighbors on Pearl Street still have concern over a two story structure being added at the rear of their homes with respect to how other infill projects have been handled; the proposed new building is 21 feet tall which is lower in height than two story buildings at 2619 Santa Clara Avenue and 2618 Janis Street; the Planning Board determined that the project does fit into the site; the project fulfills all zoning requirements, e.g., coverage, height, set back, open space, and parking requirements; the Murphys submitted an application requesting changes to their approved plan; the applicants request to be relieved of 1) obligations to satisfy parking requirements, and 2) landscaping required by the Planning Board; staff recommends that said modifications be denied because the project would not comply with parking requirements and would no longer be compatible with the neighborhood; a letter from the applicant's attorney, Mr. Wood, [dated August 17, 1998] states the City would be restricted in its ability to enforce the Zoning Ordinance since the [new] units will be affordable units; State law does not require communities not to impose standards simply because the project is affordable; there are no special requirements being placed on the units due to location or affordability. In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry regarding the Planning Board's decision, the Planning Director stated the decision was unanimous of five Board members present. Mayor Appezzato further inquired whether both the appellant and applicant were displeased with the Planning Board's decision, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative and stated that she does not understand why the applicants are displeased; the Board approved the application submitted. Cindy Marsh, Appellant, stated that she submitted this appeal because the proposed project: 1) does not comply with the City's guidelines for infill building, and 2) it disrupts the quality of Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 life in her neighborhood; the applicant has cross-filed which is inappropriate and should be considered inadmissible; [appeal] was not filed because proposed units are intended to be Section 8 [low- income] Housing; she is only opposed to the [new] structure which is too close to Pearl Street backyards; the dwelling does not comply with the City's infill guidelines because it is surrounded by backyards which are maintained as open space; [the proposed building] is too tall to be subordinate to and blend in with the rest of the neighborhood and other dwellings on the property; the proposed architecture does not match the majority of buildings on the site; hard scape is clearly dominant in open space areas; [tennis courts] are available for only four hours a day by appointment; the relationship between all buildings, elevations of existing structures, and location and height of buildings on adjacent lots must be indicated on infill applications--none of this has been done; maintenance and code violations, which must be addressed before a Public Hearing can be scheduled, have been folded into the proposed project; development plans for this entire parcel, the character of the neighborhood and the historic Janis Circle are in jeopardy; all neighbors in close proximity did not know lots had been merged into one large parcel; individual addresses do not indicate that this is one large parcel; a detailed Master Plan should be public information; the City of Alameda should make a commitment to neighborhoods in Alameda. William Taylor, Appellant, stated that he is opposed to the applicant piggybacking on the appeal; the low-income [housing] issue was never brought up at any Planning Board meetings; issue is about quality of life and neighborhoods; if the applicant would like to provide low-income housing, existing units should be converted to low-income and infill housing should be rented at market value; applicant should build a single-story cottage style house behind the historic Victorian which is the only house that cannot be torn down; any future reinstatement of the Victorian to a single lot will be infeasible [after project completion]; the back unit is not on the original lot line; structure will match Janis Circle; there is no design relationship to the front building, instead the new unit is being designed to match housing on a different street [Janis Circle]; a possible goal of the applicants might be a large housing project, shopping plaza, or some professional buildings; there is no Master Plan; neighbors believe they are part of a historic neighborhood; there is no green [landscaping], only hard scape which looks like a parking lot; this type of design is moving toward professional buildings or a large apartment complex; Council should reject the project and stand up for neighborhoods and community; issue of grandfathered parking spaces should be reviewed; questioned whether Alamedans want this type of project. Michael Callan, Alameda, distributed a drawing of the project which he prepared; stated that he is opposed to the two-story infill Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 structures which will seriously impact his one-story home; two- story structures would reduce privacy, security, and sun-light as well as increase noise-levels and parking problems; concerned that the development might seem to be a typical infill project, however, the large parcel size would deteriorate the sense of place; majority of the homes in the neighborhood are single-story bungalow style houses; a proper Master Plan would reveal that the impact on surrounding properties and roadways is not known; there was no analysis of building heights, vehicular and pedestrian circulation, open space, existing hard scape, screening, views, and corridors; the applicant will not acknowledge the delinquent parking problems and existing building maintenance problems; the Planning Board requested the applicant to work with the neighbors, however, the applicant dismissed the suggestion; issues could have been resolved by working with the neighbors. Shana Salter, Alameda, stated that her yard backs up to the swimming pool which is to be filled in and covered with a building; she would not like to live [in the proposed new building] with a child; there are no back yards for the homes on Santa Clara Avenue; she would not want the child to walk out into a massive parking area; there are narrow intersections; safety issues should be addressed more seriously; units are not safe for families; the applicants are limiting open space to parking spaces and tennis courts. John Jacobs, Alameda, stated that he objects to the project for three reasons: 1) the new two unit building will reduce his limited privacy; 2) the design of the buildings copies other nearby multi- tenant buildings, creating a cracker box look which detracts from the neighborhood; and 3) the proposed landscaping repeats throughout the project which gives a development look instead of a neighborhood; the project is not consistent with the diversity of the neighborhood and looks like a housing development project. Patty Jacobs, Alameda, stated that she never thought she would say "not in my back yard", however, that is what the residents of Pearl Street are saying; the privacy in her kitchen, bathroom and bedroom will be impacted; that she objects to size and multi-levels rather than single-level; design is modeled after Janis Circle which is not relevant to the [new] structure; there is no entrance or exit to the proposed structures on Janis Circle; if the structure is placed behind two of the units, the lots will never be returned to their original size, the Planning Board approved replacing the basketball court with parking leaving only two tennis courts for the tenants; tennis courts should not be considered adequate outdoor living space. Madlyn Murphy, Applicant, stated that she has lived at 2618 Janis Circle for 37 years; the Planning Board added 19 conditions; she objects to [the Planning Board's] conditions: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 17, and 19; she is raising objections to staff requirements, which her Architect told her not to raise until the project was approved, because the matter has been reopened; the lot has been depicted on zoning maps since 1973; the parcel was combined by the County Assessor because the County was having problems assessing the property; State Law was passed six months after [parcels were combined] requiring a property subdivision map; division of the parcels would be problematic and costly because a surveyor determined that a foot is missing from the block; plans were submitted to the City which show house locations on the lot; there are four Victorians on the lot which cannot be torn down; regarding requests for a Master Plan, "what you see is what you get"--nothing can be done to the lot without tremendous expense; the swimming pool is deteriorating, cannot be used due to environmental reasons, and has not been used in 5 years;[filling the pool in] has been combined with construction of affordable units, one of which is for disabled, to have some return on the large investment; appellants have requested the matter to be postponed to allow public notice on the City zoning maps, however, that [noticing] is unnecessary; tenants are permitted to use tennis courts; City staff has requested landscaping around the USDA-approved tennis courts and hard scape be replaced with trees; dirt, roots and leaves from trees are not compatible with tennis courts. Ms. Murphy reviewed photographs which she submitted to Council depicting: landscaping improvements on Murphy ®s various properties, vinyl [sheeting] and foundation work completed at 1518 Broadway similar to plans for 2619 Santa Clara Avenue, a rear door at 2615 Santa Clara Avenue which staff originally proposed as a location for landscaping, other properties on Santa Clara Avenue in need of maintenance, a view from the rear balcony of 2619 Santa Clara Avenue overlooking the garage and house at 1513 Pearl Street--14 foot trees are required to screen a hot tub in said garage, a view from her bedroom window looking directly over 1515 Pearl Street, a view from her house to her neighbor's home on Janis Circle which does not have special screening, parking on Santa Clara Avenue at 7 a.m..--- parking is impacted from commuters and those dining at Kamakura Restaurant. Ms. Murphy further stated the building will be 60 feet away from adjacent houses and 26 feet from rear lot lines; most homes are 10 feet [from rear lot lines]; the requirement is that homes be 7 feet [from rear lot lines]; that she is not happy with the requirements which have be placed on the project which will cost over $75,000, Teresa Pappas, Alameda, in support of the applicant, relinquished her three minutes. Jordan Robinson, Alameda, in support of the applicant, relinquished her three minutes. Matt Murphy, son of Applicant, Alameda, stated new homeowners purchasing properties sign a preliminary title report which shows Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 adjacent lots; the project site is one lot in said report; the property was in a decrepit state when it was acquired in the early 1970's and has been improved over the last 30 years; there is a plan for the property; this is a case of "not in my back yard" and opposition to low- income housing. Joan Dawson, Alameda, stated that she supports the project; the property has been maintained; and urged Council to approve the plan submitted by the applicant. Jean Bugbee, Alameda, stated that she is the tenant at 2609 Santa Clara Avenue; her garage will be removed or moved to her backyard to provide required parking [for the proposed project]; currently, she does not share common area with any other units; she had plans to install a wheelchair lift in her backyard which have been postponed due to the project; her unit will be directly impacted due to parking requirements which have been imposed on the Murphys; transporting her daughter into her house without a wheelchair lift is difficult; her neighbors at 2607 Santa Clara Avenue will lose half of their backyard to accommodate moving her garage; her house along with three other homes are self - contained homes and that will be taken away [as a result of the project] Don Kanare, Alameda, stated that he supports the applicant; the project should go forward; Santa Clara Avenue is not dominated by bungalows; the area to be built upon [swimming pool] is the least usable open space; keeping the tennis courts provides more useable open space than the appellant's proposal to move the proposed two - story structure 180 degrees; the landscaping is characterized by hard scape and drought resistant plans; the desire for a Master Plan and parking and traffic issues are being used to delay the project; tenants are to enter the driveway at 2619 Santa Clara Avenue and exit out the drive way at 2615 Santa Clara to minimize congestion and the potential for collisions; there is not a deficiency of 25 parking spaces, his building has two extra parking spaces; the arguments against the project are based on emotion not reason. Elaine Murphy, Alameda, in support of the applicant, relinquished her three minutes. Joseph Wood, Applicant's Legal Counsel, stated the Murphys are not asking the Council to undo things agreed to and applied for by the Murphys; they request Council to reconsider certain issues because there were 19 conditions imposed by the Planning Board; Council has the authority to add or remove conditions; conditions cause problems; additional costs of certain conditions imposed upon the Murphys make this project infeasible; the Planning Director indicated there is no documentation of the added cost, however, Mr. Murphy can provide documentation that completion of said conditions will cost another $75,000 or $80, 000; since additional costs will Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 make the project infeasible, the applicants are under the Government Code Section which states cities and government agencies should not impose conditions which are so excessive as to make low- and moderate-income housing projects infeasible; the Planning Director pointed out that the City can follow its zoning regulations; the applicants are not suggesting that the City not follow rules of development, however, height and number of trees, along with removal concrete are not hard and fast zoning regulations being applied, rather these are judgement calls, opinion and gradation; [conditions] go beyond what is required to protect neighbors; project is reaching excessive conditions such that the low- and moderate-income housing project becomes infeasible--that is against the law; they are not suggesting Council ignore zoning [regulations], Council should just follow the law. Councilmember Lucas stated there were complaints regarding the Proximity of proposed additions to adjacent properties; inquired whether Zoning Code requirements were met, to which the Planning Director responded [Code requirements] were met and exceeded. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry regarding distance, the Planning Director stated the new two-story unit is over twenty feet [from lot line]. Councilmember Lucas further questioned whether adjacent buildings are garages, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry whether tenants would be able to look into garages, the Planning Director stated the building has been designed without panoramic views and with high window sill heights; people can look out, however, views are not provided for individuals sitting in the room; the balcony was also moved. Councilmember Lucas inquired about the location of the balcony, to which the Planning Director responded the balcony will be facing 2619 Santa Clara Avenue. In response to Councilmember Lucas's inquiry whether it is possible to look into neighbors bathrooms or bedrooms, the Planning Director stated it is unlikely; landscaping along the edge of the property is also required; there are already two-story units overlooking the area which make the privacy issue an existing condition; most people screen bedroom and bath windows for privacy. Councilmember Lucas requested the Planning Director to verify that the matter is only a design review issue, to which the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry regarding whether the proposed building is a duplex which conforms with Measure A requirements from the early 1970's, the Planning Director responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated that she is displeased with people throwing names and accusations at people on the other side of an issue; neighbors who would like to preserve the quality of life in their neighborhood are exercising their democratic rights before the Council, infill projects require maintenance and Code violation problems to be corrected before scheduled for Public Hearings, inquired whether maintenance and Code violations were addressed regarding said project.' The Planning Director stated in the past, construction debris, inoperable vehicles and outdoor storage were issues; this project has problems with paint and handrails which are common throughout the City, there are not property maintenance issues which are violations under the Municipal Code, paving of front yards is being discussed with the Murphys; the project includes removal of part of the hard scape in the front; said matter was not identified as an issue which needed to be corrected before a Public Hearing. Councilmember Kerr requested an off - agenda report on existing building maintenance and Code violation issues and resolutions thereto, before a Public Hearing on infill is held; inquired why the City would allow the addition of buildings, if existing structures are not being maintained, stated issues should be addressed in a more strict fashion. Councilmember Kerr further stated this project highlights the problem of grandfathered, parking deficits need to be addressed before units are added, often new infill units provide tandem parking which is almost useless. Councilmember Kerr requested an off- agenda report on possible Zoning Code amendments related to grandfathered parking when new units are added to a lot with parking deficits; stated a deficiency of 25 parking spaces should not be passed over lightly. Councilmember Kerr stated the project is in a R -4 Medium Density Residential [Zone], the maximum allowable development under Measure A is 8.8 to 21.8 dwelling units per acre and 2,000 square feet per dwelling unit, limitations were put into the City Charter to prevent development abuse, said limitations have become a goal - -to see how many units can be placed on a lot, 21.8 dwelling units per lot does not make it Medium Density, it makes it maximum density. In response to Councilmember Kerr 's` inquiry regarding the drainage problem at 2624 Janis Circle, the Planning Director stated that she is not aware of a problem, the Murphys believe the drainage system works and do not want to change a system which works; roof drains Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 will be connected; there will be drainage changes related to new development. Councilmember Kerr further inquired whether the tennis courts provide most of the open space, to which the Planning Director responded part of the open space requirements are met with: 1) the green area which sits between the proposed unit and the unit with the proposed addition of a second story, and 2) the balcony on the proposed new upstairs unit; the Zoning Code permits open space to be met by a combination of private and common open space; in this project, majority of the open space requirements are met with common open space. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding required trees on the eastern side of the [proposed] new building, the Planning Director stated [Planning Board] condition 7(b) requires four to six 15- gallon trees, which are the type to reach 14 feet within 2 year and grow further thereafter, to provide screening. Councilmember Kerr inquired about the type of trees to be planted, to which the Planning Director stated the criteria for selection has been set; the project is in the preliminary design review stage; the final landscape plans will indicate the exact type of tree. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry whether a $10,000 bond is sufficient since the Murphys have indicated that they do not want to comply with landscaping requirements, the Planning Director stated all landscaping must be installed prior to occupancy of the units, except the front yards of 2611, 2615 and 2619 Santa Clara Avenue; said exception must be completed within one year of occupancy and is financially guaranteed. Councilmember Kerr inquired when the bond would be satisfied and whether the bond would cover future maintenance of trees, to which the Planning Director responded the bond is for performance, not maintenance; there are no provisions for maintenance; an automatic sprinkler system is required. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he has three questions /comments: 1) whether anything could be done to accommodate Ms. Bugbee's- concern regarding her inability to construct a [wheelchair] lift; 2) thanked Michael Callan for the drawing he submitted to Council; and 3) costs involved; believes cost of landscaping is the major problem; there should be a limit set on cost; agrees with the work done by the Planning Board; the Board attempted to divide the areas as best it could and provide the best landscaping possible, however, there needs to be a limit on cost; in addition, in regard to concern for children living in the new units without yard space, the units could be used for seniors and /or handicapped persons; the Murphys indicated a willingness to develop the property in a Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 manner to provide accessibility for the handicapped; and requested staff to comment on matter. The Planning Director responded that the ground floor units in both buildings are being designed to be disabled accessible; when approving Design Reviews, the City does not tell property owners who they may rent to; all of the units will be provided with a private outdoor area; the green area that sits between the new duplex and the existing unit will be private open space; and the upstairs unit will have a balcony. Vice Mayor DeWitt remarked Mr. Murphy is volunteering to develop units for handicapped people, to which the Planning Director stated it is part of the funding being sought; there may be limitations on income and making units available to disabled households; and making it a condition of Design Review concerns her. Councilmember Lucas stated Vice Mayor DeWitt's suggestion on limiting units to senior rentals could cause the Murphys trouble under State and federal law, e.g. discrimination against families with children. The City Attorney stated the City Council does not have the authority to impose such a condition as part of Design Review. Councilmember Daysog stated the fundamental question is whether its possible to move forward with the development in a way that maintains the R-1 hopes of the neighbors, although the area itself is R -4; there are three basic areas: 1) aesthetics, 2) density, and 3) parking; in terms of aesthetics, it appears efforts are being made on the part of the Murphy team to ensure the development conforms with the standards of Alameda, e.g. zoning, General Plan, Measure A; the burden of parking is being put upon the Murphy's development, as opposed to allowing it to spread to other areas; every effort has been made to ensure that the R -1 aspirations and hopes of the neighbors have been taken into account; and that he is in favor of moving forward with the development as planned. Mayor Appezzato stated the parking situation is difficult; parking was grandfathered; hopefully, the difficulty with this development can be resolved, the City and the Murphys have been in intense litigation over Measure A; Measure A is probably the one issue that those of us here and throughout the City want to protect without question; in this case - -Mr. Murphy may have had cause in the past to sue the city over Measure A. He is a landlord in the City and landlords do have rights -- project meets all Measure A requirements; that he is not sure the City wants to enter into any more litigation over Measure A where landlords, in fact, meet the Measure A requirements; litigation is extremely costly; project follows all zoning rules, there are no variances, parking spaces have been grandfathered, and parking spaces are being added to the Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 new units; that he is not pleased with the density or the grandfathering of the parking, however, under new zoning regulations, the City has corrected [situation]; and that he will support the unanimous decision of the Planning Board. Mayor Appezzato further stated that he would not support a motion from the Applicant to abate any of the conditions put forward by the Planning Board. Councilmember Lucas moved Council sustain the Planning Board approval of the Design Review and adopt the draft Resolution contained in the Agenda Packet and all of the Conditions. Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the Council should make it possible for the Planning Director to negotiate with Mr. Murphy on the cost imposed for landscaping; the Planning Director /Department should be able to discuss the matter without having the matter go to Court, and resolve the issue as best they can. Councilmember Kerr stated that she objects to Vice Mayor DeWitt's proposal; the trees around the new building are all important to the quality of life for the people on Pearl Street; there should be no limitation or hindrance preventing trees from being planted and maintained. Councilmember Lucas concurred; stated the landscaping was designed for the protection of the neighbors, and that protection should not be limited. Mayor Appezzato stated that he does not want to abate any conditions set by the Planning Board. Vice Mayor DeWitt withdrew his amendment. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Lucas stated the Murphys are not among the landlords that can be criticized for maintenance practices; the Murphys do a good job of maintaining their properties; that she hopes the neighbors after this experience tonight, which will be a disappointment to some of the neighbors who did not prevail, can work it out - -each deserves the full respect of the community and of each other. (98- 482) Vice Mayor DeWitt moved the cost for the Appeal be returned to the Taylors, since they presented said matter as a benefit to the City and not for a personal reason. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 1.4 Councilmember Lucas seconded the motion. Under discussion, Mayor Appezzato tomorrow, as a community, we can On the call for the question, the vote - 5. stated that he hopes tonight and be good neighbors. motion carried by unanimous voice (98-483) Discussion regarding the City of Hayward's Guidelines on City Council Meeting Rules, Decorum and Order. Len Grzanka, Alameda, read the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States; stated the Mayor and Council took an Oath to uphold the Constitution, and questioned why the Council is now considering rules that will prohibit the free exercise of citizens' right to petition the government for a redress of grievances; stated the penalties in the City of Hayward's Ordinance are outrageous: a speaker can be evicted from a meeting and banned for life from attending meetings; the Mayor and Council have all the power in the City; questioned whether the City Council is scared of criticism; stated Hayward's Ordinance specifically prohibits "rude and derogatory remarks, reflections as to integrity, abusive comments, and statements as to motives and personalties;" and that he does not like said Ordinance because it impinges citizens right to freely petition the government for a redress of grievances. Mayor Appezzato stated that he does not believe anyone has the right to call fire in a crowded theater; there are rules that can be set. Councilmember Lucas stated Hayward's Ordinance raises some points not addressed by Council policy; Council has rules of order, although the question of decorum and manners is not addressed; that she supports the presence of a Sergeant at Arms in the audience in the event of serious violations; the community should live together without antagonism, which decorum helps achieve. Vice Mayor DeWitt read certain portions of Hayward's Ordinance pertaining to Decorum; stated slanderous remarks against races, people of sexual gender, etcetera have been made at the podium [in the Council Chambers], which were completely out of place, Council did not have any means of taking action to prevent speaker from making such remarks; such slanderous remarks often lead to hate crimes; that he would like to see the first two sentences of the section on Decorum and Order in [Hayward's] material placed in Section 1 of the existing Resolution [pertaining to Rules of Order]; in addition, the enforcement issue, a Sergeant at Arms or Police Officer, should be included in the Resolution, with the exception of barring speaker(s) from attendance at future meetings. Councilmember Lucas inquired whether Vice Mayor DeWitt was Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 ()mil 4 ZY interested in addressing the section on decorum among Councilmembers. Vice Mayor DeWitt responded that he thought said matter was addressed, although he was uncertain exactly where in the existing rules and regulations. Councilmember Lucas stated the intent is for Council to discuss the matter briefly tonight and for the City Attorney to report back with a proposal on amending Council's Rules of Orders. Councilmember Kerr stated that she feels uneasy about any Councilmember deciding a speaker is being overly impertinent or slanderous; one person's humor is another person's nightmare; that she is very concerned about Council getting into censorship; although she has had individuals approach her in the Council Chamber and state objectionable things to her, she is not about to shut off their right to state them; slander should be determined in the Courts; there have been occasions on this Council when Councilmembers have been rude to each other, however, in general Council has survived it; Council Meetings are cable televised and when a Councilmember is rude they pay for [such behavior]; and, in her opinion, Council should proceed [on the matter] with great caution. Mayor Appezzato questioned whether Vice Mayor DeWitt wanted the same rules of order and decorum for the public to be applicable to the Council, to which Vice Mayor DeWitt responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Daysog stated it is disconcerting to see colleagues or anyone in the public attacked, and for that reason rules of order and decorum are in order; however, the question is whether the Council should put certain requirements which proscribe certain behavior in writing; terms such an impertinent, slanderous and boisterous are vague; the public knows when individuals are out of order and make their own judgements accordingly; and that he does not see any pressing need to move forward with language as in the City of Hayward's Ordinance. Mayor Appezzato suggested Councilmember Lucas work with the City Attorney; if she [Lucas] believes Council needs anything, she can bring matter back for Council consideration. Councilmember Lucas stated Mayor Appezzato's suggestion is a good one, and she would like to ask the City Attorney to do that. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the Council would mind if Councilmember Lucas worked with the City Attorney; and if Council does not like what comes back, Council can vote against it. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998 Councilmember Lucas responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr stated no, [in response to Mayor Appezzato's remarks], that she was not going to interrupt her [Lucas's] free speech either. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated there is one individual who makes slanderous statements at Council Meetings; the policy of the Council has been to ignore the person and to presume the public understands; however, when someone is ignored for, a period of time, people get the idea Council goes along with what is said; information from the Police Department indicates the City has quite a bit of hate crime activity; the public should not get the idea Council condones and ignores bigotry, hatred and other types of slanderous statements against races, sexual orientations, etcetera; and that he is in favor of the proposal. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Vice Mayor DeWitt agreed that Councilmember Lucas should review the matter with the City Attorney. Vice Mayor DeWitt responded in the affirmative. The City Attorney advised the City Council that no Council action was necessary tonight. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (Public Comment) (98 -484) Helen Jefferson, Alameda, stated that she was waiting for a report on the Dog Park which the City Manager was to provide, and requested that said information be provided to her via e -mail. The City Manager stated that he and the Mayor will meet with East Bay Regional Parks District [EBRPD] representatives to discuss the matter; following said meeting, a report will be provided to the City Council. Mayor Appezzato explained EBRPD owns the Park and the matter must be presented to the District's Board. (98- 485) Robert Todd, Alameda, stated that he attended an EBRPD Meeting; three letters to the Editor had incorrect information; [advocates] are requesting a larger [Dog] Park; [Dog Park], is a point of community pride which is being neglected; City staff and the District should work together for a better community. (98 -486) Richard Neveln, Alameda, commented on historic preservation and resources throughout the City of Alameda, e.g. the Silver Building [Lohr Building] and the USS Hornet Aircraft Carrier; stated the City would benefit from tourism revenue. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council September 1, 1998