Loading...
1991-05-28 Minutes146 MINUTES OF JOINT WORK SESSION CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY COUNCIL AND VARIOUS COMMITTEES. HELD TUESDAY - - - - - MAY 28, 1991 The meeting convened at 7:30 presiding. ROLL CALL p.m. with President Withrow Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, Roth, and President Withrow - 5. Absent: None. The purpose of the Work Session was to receive presentations by Chairpersons of the following Committees: a. Mastick Senior Center Advisory Board b. Cable Television Oversight Committee c. Finance Committee d. Transportation Advisory Committee e. Mayor's Committee for the Handicapped f. Rent Review Advisory Committee g. Solid Waste Management & Recycling Committee ADJOURNMENT President Withrow adjourned the meeting at 9:09 p.m. ectfully sub Ad 47 DI E B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The notice of the meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. May 28, 1991 147 SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA MAY 28, 1991 The meeting convened at 9:20 p.m. with President Withrow presiding. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Lucas, Roth, and President Withrow - 5. Absent: None. 91-362 From Planning Director regarding status of review of Building Plans for Lyon's Restaurant, 2351 Shore Line Drive. The Planning Director stated a new piece of information would be submitted with the suggestion Council continue the matter as a result of that information; in 1989 a final landscape plan for the development was approved, which may mean there is no further discretion in the area of landscaping; however, preliminary review indicates the approved landscaping and the approved building do not appear to go together as well as they might, and the implications of that are not yet known; and reviewed the background of the matter. Janice Alf, Alameda, stated she agreed with Councilmember Lucas; the view [from the Lyon's site] is spectacular; and it is unfortunate the matter was not brought up before. Councilmember Lucas stated Lyon's is the kind of restaurant she would like to see at that site, with some modifications; understands the legal questions concerning what pressure may be exerted, but any cooperation Lyon's could give would be appreciated by the community; has a concern that a patio facing Park Street will not be as successful as a patio facing south with a better view and more warmth; would like to keep meeting with Lyon's to try to reach a compromise. Mike Simonson, Lyon's Restaurant, reviewed the procedure followed through the years, changes made at request of Planning Department including addition of a patio and windows with a view of the ocean; noted Planning Board approved plan, but one week before issuance of Permit, he has been requested to make changes; he does not believe the design can be changed now because the whole process would need to be repeated and would cost Lyon's $150-200,000. Councilmember Camicia stated the property is the last piece along a strip that has been controversial for years and is the last opportunity to do something along that strip; Lyon's has done what it has been asked to do, but perhaps there can be discussion and some compromise may be reached. Mr. Simonson stated he believes most elements appear to be for a waterfront restaurant with a certain ambience which would change his restaurant from a family-oriented restaurant; if his seating May 28, 1991 4 8 capacity is changed, according to the request for more patio seats, he would need other changes, e.g., a bigger kitchen, more parking spaces. President Withrow stated Council has the intent to change the image of Alameda from being anti-business but will not subjugate its values, and the waterfront is very important; the restaurant will occupy a valuable site on the waterfront with an unparalleled view; he wants businesses to be successful and vibrant but a problem does exist; it is not Council's intent that Lyon's be delayed four to six months, but to address concerns of the Vice-Mayor. James Justus, Alameda, stated January was the time to state that the matter was not approved; Lyon's must have made commitments with contractors, etc., and to bring the matter up now is wrong; Lyon's should be given the go-ahead. Mrs. Alf stated she can understand that the developer would be upset at postponement; but it is better now, than never, to correct the problems; and as a senior citizen, she believes many senior citizens will want to frequent Lyon's; the ambience is important. Councilmember Roth stated this is an example of why the City is known as anti-business, and an indication of the lack of planning; the site has been considered for years; there is no guarantee East Bay Regional Park District will not place trees across the street and block the view; the plot plan has the majority of the parking lot facing the ocean which shows lack of planning; someone comes in, follows requirements, yet Council discusses the matter after the fact and talks about postponement; does not believe the City should tell a business how to lay out the inside of its business; raised the question of parking requirement if the seating is changed; stated businesses cannot afford such delays; the City does not have good planning for businesses to come in, and he does not believe the restaurant should be held hostage for the City's mistakes. Councilman Arnerich stated he appreciates what Councilmember Lucas is trying to do but the matter could have been addressed months ago; he agrees with Councilmember Roth and Mr. Simonson; Council has sent out the stigma again that Alameda is anti-business; he is prepared to vote. Councilmember Lucas moved to continue the matter until the Planning Director is able to solve the question on the landscaping. President Withrow inquired if the Planning Director can be prepared in twenty-four hours; the Planning Director stated that depends upon what the decision is, explained the situation, noting the landscape plan was approved almost two years ago prior to building approval, which is out of the ordinary, some landscaping needs review; the issue is whether landscaping is a matter still within the City's discretion, and one that would be appealable, depending upon what the decision is; he will need time to see the plans accurately superimposed; the Applicant will need to see that; he needs to talk to the City Attorney with regard to what level of commitment the City has with regard to the previously approved plan. May 28, 1991 149 President Withrow inquired if the patio is part of landscaping; to which the City Attorney replied the majority of the project was previously approved and no appeal can be made from it; the only issues that can be appealed are landscaping and lighting; the lighting was not previously approved; the Planning Director must determine what was approved in 1989; what was not approved is subject to review; the Planning Director can look at a patio or no patio, that type of issue. President Withrow stated he is asking where the matter is leading Council; if there is discretion and landscaping can be opened up, where will that take Council. The City Attorney replied anything that goes through design review has an appeal right, to the Planning Board and ultimately to the Council; Council can address lighting and landscaping which was not previously approved by design review; the issue that came up today is whether or not the patio is part of landscaping; and whether or not Council can address that issue, but the initial reading from the Public Works Department is that this particular patio is part of a building and is not considered landscaping because there is ingress and egress from the interior part of the building, and if the patio dining numbers are increased, different fire code-, restroom- and parking requirements would apply; that refers to enclosed patio; for an open patio space, slab: that could be part of landscaping. The existing patio is a part of the building. In response to inquiry of the Mayor, the Planning Director stated Lyon's may not have known there was a previously-existing landscape plan, which has caused some problems for them as well as the City. Harsh Investments informed the City the landscape plan had been done, and City records confirmed same. Councilman Arnerich inquired if the Council now has no right to request e.g., changes of windows, but can only work with lighting and landscaping. The City Attorney responded that is correct, unless the Applicant voluntarily wants to change something. Councilman Arnerich inquired if there is to be a change e.g., from small windows to a large plate glass window, would Lyon's need to go back through the whole planning process, to which the Planning Director stated it would depend upon the magnitude of the change; if they wanted a change substantially different from what the Planning Board reviewed, he would want the Planning Board to review. Councilmember Roth inquired if the project can move ahead if all that can be discussed is the lighting and landscaping. The City Attorney stated the approval was subject to prior design review. Following further discussion regarding approval of landscaping and lighting, Councilmember Camicia stated he would like to see a May 21, 1991 0 compromise and avoid the legal posturing, have a better look at the matter, take a couple of days to see if the matter can be resolved; and he would like to second the Vice-Mayor's motion to continue. President Withrow agreed with the Vice-Mayor's concerns that the site is not being effectively used, but he cannot see where a move is going to lead Council in addressing any of the issues that have been expressed that will not cause a substantial delay on the part of getting the restaurant built. Councilmember Lucas stated in the discussions at lunch today with Lyon's, the possible changes to the project were explored and it was concluded that putting windows into the rounded corners would provide more window space and if the patio faced the beach rather than leaving it on Park Street, she does not believe those modifications would be major or would require the whole process to be done again; a lengthier process might be a greenhouse type area in the direction of the beachfront. Councilman Arnerich questioned if Mr. Simonson is agreeable to any of Councilmember Lucas's suggestions. Mr. Simonson replied that anything discussed by Councilmember Lucas would require six to seven months of process and he is therefore not willing. Councilman Arnerich inquired, if a discussion was held with Mr. Simonson and Councilmember Lucas to resolve some problem areas, and Lyon's could start next week without going through the Planning process again, would he be willing to do that Mr. Simonson stated he would be willing, as long as he was not delayed and the changes did not cost an exorbitant amount; and added that the requests by Councilmember Lucas would involve a lot of time and a lot of cost. Councilmember Roth noted a request was made for small windows in the rounded corners of the building. Mr. Simonson stated that was discussed but he, later in the day, talked to his architect and a lot of structural elements are involved in that and is therefore not possible to do as it would require redesign of the whole front of the restaurant, putting some kind of a load-bearing beam across, and it is very complicated. Councilmember Roth inquired about the patio. Councilman Arnerich inquired, as other Lyon's do not have patios, why one is being put in at this one, to which Mr. Simonson replied staff had requested one. Councilmember Camicia stated staff could work with Mr. Simonson. President Withrow stated Council can, in guidance in accepting the report, direct staff to issue the permit by the close of business on Friday after negotiations are completed. May 28, 1991 The City Manager stated that guidance can be given, assuming that they pull an electrical permit, and the changes staff and Mr. Simonson decide upon are not substantial changes that would require return to the Planning Board. The Planning Director stated his concern about the timing is that some issues need to be resolved regarding the landscape plans. Councilmember Camicia stated concurrent with, and no later than, the approval of the landscape plan, the compromise of the other issues be worked out. President Withrow stated if afternoon, he would like to see Council explaining why it could delays, that they not be on the Councilmember Lucas requested permit is issued Friday, there review. a permit is not issued by Friday a full accountability coming back to not be done; and insure if there are part of the City. clarification that if a building would be an Appeal period on design The City Attorney stated there is a 15-day Appeal period. President Withrow stated an Appeal can only be made on those things that have not already been set. The City Attorney concurred; stated landscaping and lighting are subject to design review; design review is subject to a 15-day Appeal period, back to the Planning Board. Councilmember Roth stated if the landscaping plan was approved two years ago, there is no Appeal process, the time has expired. The City Attorney replied if the approved landscaping plan covers all of the areas, that is correct, however the landscaping plan does not cover the lighting, so the lighting could be appealed. Councilman Arnerich stated he is ready to vote. President Withrow clarified the motion and the second is to continue the matter to sometime in the future. Councilmember Camicia stated staff should be requested to get together with Lyon's and work out a compromise in a timely manner. President Withrow further clarified acceptance of the staff report being continued, and stated he did not hear a timeframe on the motion; and inquired if the Councilmember who made the motion would be amenable to modifying the motion to a timeframe of 5:00 p.m. on Friday. The City Attorney commented the Appeal period must still be considered, and further elaborated on the procedure involved, and the time needed for investigation of the matter. May 28, 1991 152 President Withrow stated if there are delays, they must be substantive and meaningful. Councilman Arnerich stated he is not comfortable with setting the timeframe and proposed the vote be taken on the notion. Mr. Simonson stated he will do whatever landscaping and lighting the City wants, but he would like the building permit issued so that construction of the building can be started; if necessary will post a bond for the landscaping and lighting; and requested the building not be delayed. President Withrow stated that sounds reasonable to him but Council must be sure that is in sync with the Alameda Municipal Code, and is cleared by the City Attorney. Joe Munyer, Harsh Investment, stated the landscaping plan was initiated by the City of Alameda because of a concern that the landscaping would not be the same as the rest of the shopping center, and that is why the plan was put together for the entire corner; Lyon's had nothing to do with it, and he is not sure, but he believes Harsh may also be doing the lighting. The motion was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Lucas and President Withrow - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Arnerich and Roth - 2. Absent: None. President Withrow stated the motion, for clarification, is to accept the report, give guidance to the City to issue [a permit] no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday evening [5/31/91] so that Lyon's can start building their project. ADJOURNMENT President Withrow adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in advance in accordance with the Brown Act. May 28, 1991