Loading...
1990-06-07 Adjourned Regular CC Minutes160 ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF ALAMEDA JUNE 7, 1990 The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with President Corica presiding. Councilmember Thomas led the pledge to the flag. The invocation was given by Reverend Dorothy Kimbrell. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas, Withrow and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. CONSENT CALENDAR President Corica announced he had a request from Don Patterson, Alameda Board of Realtors to remove ordinance regarding design review, maximum number of stories, height and building coverage, from the Consent Calendar to the regular agenda. Councilmember Thomas registered a No vote on ( *90 -383) Bills. Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *90 -370 From Assistant City Manager- recommending award of construction contract to Maggiora Brothers Drilling, Inc. to drill and install a water well on the Earl Fry Course. Accepted. *90 -371 From Assistant City Manager recommending acceptance of work by Daylen, Incorporated for Jack Clark Irrigation Project. P.W 6 -89 -3. Accepted. *90 -372 From Public Works Director, recommending award of contract to Gallagher & Burk, Inc., for the construction of Catalina Avenue widening, Fontana Drive to Fir Place, No. P.W. 11- 89 -22. Accepted. *90 -373 From Public Works Director concerning Public Pay Telephone Comparison Test and recommendation for Future Pay Telephone Services. Accepted. *90 -374 From Public Works Director regarding approval of Recreation Commission's recommendation allocating $165,000 in Measure AA Local Match Monies for SB140 Bay Farm Island Bike Bridge Project. Accepted. *90 -375 From Finance Director regarding Sales Tax for period ending March 31, 1990. Accepted. RESOLUTIONS *90 -376 Resolution No. 11966. "Rejecting all bids and authorizing June 7, 1990 166 by resolution, negotiation in the open market, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, for street and storm drainage improvements at the southwest corner of Everett Street and Blanding Avenue. P.W. 10- 89 -18." Adopted. *90 -377 Resolution No. 11967. "Approving Final Map, Bond, and Subdivider's Agreement for Tract 6147 (Harbor Bay Isle Village Five). Adopted. *90 -378 Resolution No. 11968. "Authorizing the emergency repairs at Northside and Webster Street Storm Pump Stations, pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter, and appropriating $28,177.21 from the Sewer Service Fund." Adopted. *90 -379 Resolution No. 11969. "Accepting a Grant Deed from Harbor Bay Isle Village Five Associates to City of Alameda for additional Right -of -Way for Mecartney Road." Adopted. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES *90 -380 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Article 8, Chapter 3, Title II thereof, establishing an Economic Development Commission and prescribing membership and duties of said commission." Introduced. *90 -381 Ordinance No. t N.S. "Repeal of Section 17 -353, Title XVII, of the Alameda Municipal Code, prohibiting recreational vehicles from parking longer than 72 hours on public streets." Introduced. FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCE *90 -382 Ordinance No. 2484, N.S. "Amending Chapter 4, Title XIII of the Alameda Municipal Code pertaining to the Alameda Business Improvement Area." Adopted. BILLS *90 -383 A List of Claims certified by the City Manager as correct, was ratified in the sum of $2,023,635.66. * * * * * * * * MINUTES Councilmember Camicia moved approval of the Minutes of the Regular Council Meeting of May 15, 1990. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 90 -384 Mid - Management Exceptional Awards Program President Corica made a presentation of the Mid - Management Exceptional Award to Adele Oakes, Revenue Accountant, Finance Department. [The Finance Director accepted on behalf of Ms. Oakes June 7, 1990 167 who could not be present.] 90 -385 Proclamation for a Safe and Sober Graduation, 1990. President Corica read the joint proclamation of the City of Alameda and the Alameda Unified School District. Barbara Rasmussen, President, Board of Education, expressed personal gratitude that the City and School District have joined together to send the message for a safe and sober graduation to both teenagers and their parents; and the unifying effort of the Board and the City working together is important. HEARINGS 90 -386 Consideration of levy of annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 1990 -91. President Corica explained the procedure of the hearing. The Community Development Director reviewed the background of the matter. President Corica opened the public portion of the hearing. On the call for proponents, the following spoke: Kent Rosenblum, 1409 Webster, West Alameda Business Association, (WABA) expressed his enthusiasm with the new developments and businesses, and the funding for promotions to attract people to the West End. Lory Barnes, 1347 Park Street, stated as a new business owner on Park Street, she is excited about the use of funds and the benefit to Park Street and all the businesses. Kimberly Byrne, 715 Central Avenue, thanked Council for approving the budget for the BIA last year, noted that much has been accomplished with the fund and WABA has had an exciting year. on the call for opponents, there were none. The public portion of the hearing was closed. Art Smith of Art Smith Flags, commented he receives very little business from Park Street; his business comes from out -of -town and out of the country. President Corica stated Mr. Smith is making himself heard and perhaps, after tonight, things might change for him. Councilman Arnerich Improvement Areas to his products if he recommendation. encouraged the merchants of the Business at least obtain prices from Mr. Smith and use is competitive; and moved acceptance of the June 7, 1990 16 Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Camicia moved the related resolution be taken out of order. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-387 Resolution No. 11970. "Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year 1990-91 and levying an annual assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 1990-91." Councilmember Thomas moved adoption. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-388 Consideration of adoption of the 1988 Uniform Building Code. President Corica noted there were no speakers to be heard. Councilmember Camicia moved the related ordinance be taken out of order. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-389 Ordinance No. 2485, N.S. "Adopting the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, the 1988 Edition of the Uniform Building Code Standards, and the Uniform Code for the Abatement of dangerous buildings regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving removal conversion, demolition, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and maintenance of buildings or structures in the City of Alameda; providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefor; providing for penalties thereof; and repealing Ordinance No. 2265, New Series, and all other ordinances in conflict therewith." Adopted. Councilmember Camicia moved final passage of the ordinance. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. APPEALS 90-390 Consideration of Appeal of Planning Board decision to deny Use Permit, UP-89-21, to allow the establishment of an attorney's office as required in Zoning Ordinance Section 11-1319(a), and Variance, V-89-9, to allow the provision of nine parking spaces for an attorney's office, whereas ten off-street parking spaces are required under Zoning Ordinance Section 11-14C5(c)(2). The office would be located within a R-5, General Residential District at 2156 Central Avenue. Applicant/Appellant: William J. Berg. President Corica explained the procedure followed for Appeals. Councilmember Thomas noted she would abstain for reasons previously stated. [See 90-310, May 1, 1990 Regular Council Meeting Minutes: Councilmember Thomas stated she had been contacted by two persons and discussed the case; therefore she would abstain.] June 7, 1990 169 The Acting Planning Director reviewed the background of the matter. The following persons addressed Council on the matter: William Berg, Appellant, 2156 Central Avenue, stated the Use Permit and Variance were before the Planning Board on three separate occasions and staff recommended in favor of Use Permit and Variance; the project was rejected by the Planning Board by a 4 -3 vote; believes Planning Board was mislead by some speakers; few citizens opposed the project; his law practice would not be an intrusion in neighborhood as most of his work is by telephone and mail; intends restoration of 94 year old building he purchased; does not object to $8,880 in City fees noted in October, but objects to the affordable housing fee of $7,365 because 1) he was not informed of fee until April 1990 after being before Planning Board three times, and 2) he does not believe fee applies because it is an affordable housing fee and the property which was sold for $350,000 is not affordable housing; requested Council grant Use Permit and Variance under the conditions contained in the Planning staff report dated March 12, 1990. James Kennedy, 2447 Santa Clara Avenue, attorney for Appellant, stated facts submitted at the Planning Board hearings do not support the decision for denial; the Planning Board improperly applied variance standards to the Use Permit; noted the Appellant is offering nine spaces, has small amount of clients with no requirement at peak hours as restaurants or stores; believes variance is appropriate; facts were presented by Appellant that were undisputed; and requested Council's consideration to reverse the Planning Board decision. Bill Wire, 2153 Central Avenue, requested Council reject Use Permit because the present mix of residential and non- residential is balanced; he does not want a large, flashy advertising sign across from his home; parking is a problem on the block; Appellant needs handicapped parking space and parking setback or landscaping; the office should be placed in another area, e.g., Park Street; conversion of house from residential to commercial is not consistent with the neighborhood, will create situations detrimental to area, could be injurious to persons and property in neighborhood and vicinity, and requested denial of the Use Permit. Susan Standke, 2111 Central Avenue, stated it is time to preserve neighborhoods; and would like Planning Board's decision upheld; stated neighborhood is changing and she is impacted by the change. Randall Reed, 2159 Central Avenue, stated the block is a mixed residential /commercial area, but to convert a number of houses in a short time period is impacting the neighborhood; there are other places the office can be placed; and requested Council deny the Appeal. Councilman Arnerich inquired if a space for handicapped persons must be provided from the nine spaces, to which the Acting Planning Director replied it is not necessary. June 7, 1990 170 Councilman Arnerich inquired about Mr. Berg's intention regarding a business sign, to which Mr. Berg replied he has applied with the Planning Department for a permit to place a painted wood sign in the window stating "Law Offices" in gold turn -of- the - century lettering outlined in black. Councilmember Withrow inquired if granting the variance would allow, at a future point, some other business on the property, to which the Acting Planning Director responded that the Use Permit is specifically granted for an attorney's office and indicates it would be limited to the number of employees and attorneys. To President Corica's question on the limitation, the Acting Planning Director stated the limit would be to three attorneys and five clerical staff. A discussion followed regarding the amount of parking required for the site. Councilman Arnerich commented the report indicated staff noted, at a Planning Board Meeting, some adjustment to be made toward a practical design solution, and at the following meeting, recommended approval of both Use Permit and Variance; Applicant had appeared, had apparantly complied with various requirements, and there was nothing to indicate that the property could not be used as he had intended. Councilmember Withrow stated Council must determine whether to try and preserve neighborhoods as desired by the surrounding homeowners or go along with the variance to allow an attorney to come in and, apparently, upgrade a piece of property; discussed aspects of residential /business property versus residential property; he does not believe this particular conversion is a significant deviation from the Housing Element; is concerned because he believes there is no policy under which Council could determine otherwise. President Corica stated he does not believe Council will ever have such a policy unless it includes no right of Appeal, no right of attempting to get a Variance, and he does not believe anyone could be stopped from trying; not all the people can be pleased in a particular situation but Council must determine if this will be a detriment or not; if proposal is approved, he would like Mr. Berg to work with neighbors to keep the place very low key; he does not believe there will be many clients at one time to cause parking problem. Councilmember Camicia stated, in his many years on the Planning Board, he does not recall an applicant for a variance being able to provide nine out of ten required parking spaces; agrees it is difficult to turn the variance down but it is possible for Council to modify, making the impact as minimal as possible; and suggested no evening or weekend appointments, he believes a personal injury lawyer should have a dedicated handicapped space, staff should work with Applicant on signage, does not believe a law office will create a great impact, but there needs to be an effort to ensure June 7, 1990 171. that it is not. President Corica stated the gold-lettered sign in a window described by Mr. Berg, and no signs allowed on the lawn, could be a condition. Councilman Arnerich requested that Appellant as part of the conditions, encourage his staff to use alternative modes of transportation, including car pooling. Councilmember Camicia moved to overturn the decision of the Planning Board, and add the following modifications: no evening or weekend appointments, a handicapped space be provided, the window sign be subject to Planning design review, Council review matter in a year; the current limitation on the number of staff not be exceeded; and Applicant work with Planning and Transportation staff and make a good-faith effort to develop an alternative transportation plan. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Withrow and President Corica - 4. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstentions: Councilmember Thomas - 1. 90-391 Consideration of Appeal of Planning Board decision to deny Use Permit, UP-90-3, to permit the conversion of a residential structure to a professional office at 2125 Central Avenue within the R-5, General Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Don Taylor for the Central Baptist Church. (Held over from May 15, 1990, Council Meeting) President Corica stated testimony would only be heard on the Planning Board record. James Carter, 2213-15 Central Avenue, Associate Pastor, Central Baptist Church, stated the Planning Board refused Use Permit at same time as the Berg request; the situation is different from the Berg request because 1) the Church has not asked for a variance at any time, exceeds City parking requirements, 2) the situation is only temporary, the goal of an office tenant is to help pay for the property until the Church is able to use the property for itself; the Planning Board decision appeared to be based on desire for more residential housing; but based on residential structure; the block is 92% residential space, 4% business, 3% Church, and 1% Adelphian Club; if the Use Permit is denied, renting for residential has never been an option to the Church which would reconsider its options on how best to utilize the space for Church purposes; and appealed to Council to grant Church request for the permit. Jane Brandenburg, 2133 Central Avenue, stated Church needs room, and would like to use property in the manner stated. Cathy Carter, 2215B Central Avenue, stated Mr. Carter had addressed her concerns. June 7, 1990 Barbara Morton, 901 Pacific Avenue, stated she Carter's comments. Fergie Owens, 523 Buena Vista #305, requested consistent tonight [with action on Berg Appeal]." Brenda Chaney, speakers. Scott Chaney, for him. supports Mr. Council "be 1630B Sherman Street, stated agreement with previous 1630B Sherman Street, stated Mr. Carter had spoken Cindy Clott, 2133 Central Avenue, stated it was mentioned this evening that three residential properties have been lost, but a Use Permit is only being asked for one of the residences, one was gutted by fire, and the third is being used as a residence. Robert Drake, 1105 Sherman Street, agreed with Mr. Carter, and added there is a parking lot across the street and perhaps attorney [Berg] could be helped with his parking needs. Tim Ettinger, 1016 Mound Street, stated the Church does not want to disturb the neighbors but to have a place for people to go to worship, and for children to go. Katherine Annette Farnsworth, 1217B Mariner Drive, stated Mr. Carter had spoken for her. Helen Hatfield, 2826 San Jose Avenue, stated she believes both Church and City will ultimately benefit by some flexibility in utilization of the property; she was helped by the Church and requests Council grant Use Permit and not limit opportunities for others to be cared for in the future. David Keith, 1163 Broadway #A, agreed with Mr. Carter's statement. Bob Kendall, 1187 Park Avenue, stated he was born and reared in Alameda, the Church has meant a great deal to him in his growth; the people of the Church are requesting Council's support to allow them to provide a place of worship and service for the community. Richard Lardie, 2311 Eagle Avenue, stated Mr. Carter has expressed his concerns. Alan Quenelle, 564 Central Avenue #104, stated Mr. Carter has expressed his opinions. Joe Russell, 2311 Eagle Avenue, stated he agrees with what all of the speakers have expressed. Susan Standke, 2111 Central Avenue, stated the Applicants have a Church, residences, and parking lots, she is concerned about her neighborhood, there is nothing wrong with the Church but is concerned with its growth. Randall Reed, 2159 Central Avenue, stated there are not many June 7, 1990 173 residences in the neighborhood; does not know how many Church people live in the neighborhood; questions if Church growth is appropriate on his block; and that is the issue; sometimes Church people park on the street instead of in the lots; perhaps permits should be given to people who live on the street to be able to park on the street; questioned how large a church should be allowed to grow; he has a sizeable investment; requested Council think about the impact on the neighborhood and if the residents are more important or a church that could be moved anywhere; there should be some consideration for the people that live in the neighborhood. Bill Wire, 2153 Central Avenue, stated he would like to see the Use Permit rejected for the simple reason that he does not believe it mixes or blends in with the block; the Church has a great amount of parking but the lot is chained off; perhaps some area could be opened up; if a business goes in, a sign would go up; if there is an insurance company that goes in, there may be 60 people coming into the neighborhood; the office can be placed on Park Street; the block is a buffer zone, and he would like to see it protected; and if the Use Permit is granted, he would like the entire block to be upgraded to R -6 or C -1 zone which would then benefit him. Robert Wilson, 2215K Central Avenue, stated he is a neighbor of Mr. Wire and Mr. Reed; he has never known in the 20 years he has been living in Alameda, the Church to destroy anything except to tear down a burned -out gutted house; there will be no evenings or weekends business; believes Council should consider that in a few years, there will no longer be a business there, but the structure will become part of the Church. Linden Smith, Alameda, stated he is a tenured veteran of the Marine Corp, and transit in most communities; spent a number of years in Alameda, was welcomed by the Church; it has caused him to appreciate Alameda; he believes that it benefits the community, is open to all, and hopes to contribute to the neighborhood. Councilmember Withrow stated he does not believe Council has a choice and moved approval [uphold the Appeal]. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion. Councilmember Camicia stated perhaps there is a modification that can be worked out; and inquired if it is true the lot is chained off in the evening. Mr. Carter replied the parking lot is chained during the evening hours and weekends except during Church service; it is made available to the Garner Pre - School during the day, that is where their staff, employees, park and where many parents drop off their children. President Corica inquired if the lot is completely filled during the work day, to which Mr. Carter replied it is not. Councilmember Camicia inquired if it might be possible to work out some parking arrangement to try to mitigate the parking problem. June 7, 1990 14 President Corica suggested asking for 10 or 15 spaces. Councilman Arnerich inquired if it is possible for the Church to allocate spaces during the day Monday through Friday for the neighbors concerned about the loss of spaces. Mr. Carter stated the matter has been explored and both the insurance carrier and legal counsel stated it is a problem of liability to allow the general public to park in the lot; the Pre- School rents spaces by the month which satisfies some liability aspects but to open the lot to the general public for parking, creates some liabilities for the Church which the Church is not prepared to take on at this point, although it is not an area they are entirely opposed to; it would need to go before the Pastor and the Church body. Councilman Arnerich inquired if the Church does provide for parking for all the congregation whether City or non- residents, and Mr. Carter responded such parking is provided and basically there is usage on Tuesday evenings, Wednesday evenings, and Sunday mornings and evenings. Councilman Arnerich stated he understands the legal ramifications but would like the matter explored by the Pastor and the Church insurance carrier to see if some arrangement can be made. To President Corica's question regarding parking for a possible insurance company tenant, Mr. Carter stated the insurance company may not be a tenant because of the delay of the Appeal, but any tenant would be provided parking on the property and would be covered under current insurance. Councilmember Camicia stated he believes there would still be an opportunity for anyone in the area to make some arrangement with the Church, and would like that option left open for exploration. President Corica added, that would be under the condition that the Church could be covered. Councilmember Camicia stated there should be a good faith effort to explore the parking possibilities, and with that understanding in mind, people can be made aware tonight that there are spaces available and they can work with the church to use spaces. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 90 -392 From Chairman, Historical Advisory Board, concerning the financing of seismic strengthening work for City Hall, the Carnegie building and other unreinforced masonry buildings. David Plummer, 1401 High Street, commented on his concern for the need of seismic retrofitting and rehabing City Hall and the Carnegie Library for preservation and especially, for life safety; the City must consider priorities when spending money on capital June 7, 1990 175 projects; a bond issue could be successful for monies to seismically strengthen and upgrade both buildings if the voters believe the City is serious about life safety and preserving existing civic buildings, and not using the money for a controversial and expensive Linoaks library site; and an option for financing would be to offer matching funds with voters paying half and City paying half; Proposition 122, the Earthquake Safety Act does not appear to apply. President Corica commented if the City is to consider a bond issue that would address all of the brick buildings under study by the Unreinforced Masonry Committee, he is not sure the City could provide matching funds because he does not believe the City can afford it. The City Manager stated the City is anticipating the final plans from the architect toward the end of June; the City can then look at alternatives; discussed deadline for gathering information in time for consideration of a bond issue; his concern about considering the bond issue as the only funding possible; noted a Certificate of Participation was recommended by the Finance Director, and some other forms of revenue, e.g., excise tax. President Corica commented if a study is done to determine cost to bring City Hall up to standard, he would like to review it so that property owners with small buildings would then have an idea of what it would cost to make their buildings safe. The City Manager noted the Public Works Director will be providing a report on the private work which will discuss issues about financing, engineer's reports, etc., giving an idea of the cost. The Public Works Director stated the plans being prepared for City Hall include bringing City Hall up to current day standards. Following further discussion concerning the costs of seismic upgrade and the information to be gathered, Councilmember Camicia suggested tabling the discussion until perhaps late summer for more information; noting if the deadline for the November election is missed, there will be an election in March. President Corica agreed he would like that as he is interested in what it will cost the private sector. Councilmember Camicia moved to table the matter pending further information. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -393 From City Manager concerning status of Food Bank relocation. President Corica commented Mastick Senior Center has plans for the space where the Food Bank is presently located and a new location has been sought. Ken Smith, 3137 Bali Lane, Food Bank, stated he is present to endorse the recommendation of the City Manager that Council June 7, 1990 176 authorize negotiations with the Alameda Belt Line; noted staff and Food Bank Board of Directors have been searching for sites; and thanked staff for their cooperation. Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive, stated he wants the Food Bank to prosper in its location but Mastick Center has waited a long time to utilize the space the Food Bank has been occupying, and would appreciate expeditious treatment of the matter. Councilmember Camicia moved negotiation with the Alameda authorize sub -lease to the seconded the motion which was 90 -394 From Public Works agreement with Park Street parking in City Parking Lots the recommendation [to authorize Belt Line for a short -term lease, and Food Bank] Councilmember Withrow carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Director recommending approval of Business Association for attendant A and C. Frank Lopez, 1411 Park Street, commented the merchants worked on this idea for a long time; he believes the project is well thought out and will help both the merchants on Park Street and the customers. Wayne Cowen, Park Street Gardens, 1519 Park Street, stated he is in favor of attendant parking, the merchants have been working on the project and believes attendant parking is a wonderful idea and a positive approach. James Selby, Association, by the Park the parking reviewed what 2146 Lincoln Avenue, President, Park Street Business stated parking needs have been studied and determined Street Business Association and the City; including turnover, potential for shared parking, etc., and has been achieved by this project. Cheryl Heihn, 1333 Park Street, stated she believes this is the best proposal thus far and fully supports the program. Councilmember Camicia moved to accept the report and take the related ordinance out of order. The Public Works Director stated he would like to make one minor change in the recommendation to include "by motion" to increase off - street rates in attendant lots to 50 cents /hour. 90 -395 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending Alameda Municipal Code Article 7, Title XVII public off - street parking lots, Sections 17 -372, 17 -373, 17 -374, and 17- 375." Introduced. Councilmember Camicia moved introduction, stipulating the language noted by the Public Works Director [to include "by motion" to increase off- street rates in attendant lots to 50 -cents /hour] be incorporated. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -396 From the Finance Director transmitting City Auditor's report on selection of an auditor. June 7, 1990 177 Charles Tillman, 2415 Roosevelt Drive; stated Request for Proposal for audit gives 12 time intervals as to what will be done and when it will be done; but in the agreement there is none; he does not believe the contract should go out without a time interval or frame; and believes the contract should also contain a penalty [clause). The City Auditor stated the Finance Director and he have reviewed proposals for the audit services contract and have determined that Maze & Associates is the best firm qualified to do the City's audits and has negotiated with, and convinced, them to subcontract two pieces of the audit to the local Alameda-based firm, Kimball, McKenna; the contract in Council's packet does not include a penalty clause; he strongly believes a penalty clause is not appropriate for an audit services contract; as a practicing CPA, he audits 20 cities in the Bay Area and only three of the cities have penalty clauses in their contracts; he believes the best approach is working closely with the audit firm, withholding future business if the firm does not perform; however, should Council wish to include a penalty clause in the contract, he will not invoke the power of the City Auditor's Office to have that penalty clause removed. President Corica stated he appreciated the comments; he believes the penalty clause should be put in; many other cities use penalty clauses; he would have been more comfortable if Council had worked with the Auditor on selection but his main concern is a time frame, and a penalty clause which should be more than $200 per day. Don Roberts, 880 Portola Avenue, stated he believes Mr. Harper (City Auditor) has submitted excellent proposals to the City with innovative approaches to improving some financial aspects, disagrees with his decision to not include the penalty clause in the contract but applauds his openness to consider inserting the penalty clause if Council desires it; and noted the members of the Finance Committee voted to recommend a penalty clause be included. Councilman Arnerich inquired how the amount of penalty is chosen. Councilman Arnerich stated he believes there should be a penalty clause and a time frame involved, and strict guidelines should be kept. Councilmember Camicia stated he does not believe the time frame and penalty clause are a big issue; Council can put them in this year, and if great problems ensue, can take them out in the future; moved the recommendation and requested a penalty clause and time frame be included. President Corica suggested a $300 penalty. Councilmember Thomas stated in order to be an enforceable liquidated damages clause, the amount cannot be arbitrary, and she would prefer to look at what the standard in the accounting community is for a late fee; there needs to be an accurate June 7, 1990 178 estimate as to what the damages are in order to have an enforceable penalty and Council needs to look to advice from the City Attorney and the City Auditor in that area. Councilmember Camicia requested the City Auditor provide some figures. The City Auditor stated nothing he has seen was higher than $200 per day; he has seen a $100 penalty; agrees with Councilmember Thomas that if there is one, it must be supportable if it is to be collected, and he would look to the City Attorney for assistance in that respect; and added that all such items are viewed as negatives when submitting proposals to the audit community, and fewer proposals may be received. The City Attorney commented there are two types of damages, actual, and liquidated, a best estimate as to a standard must be made and Council may wish to look to the standards of the industry as suggested by Councilmember Thomas. Following further discussion regarding a time frame and penalties, Councilmember Camicia withdrew his motion and moved to request the City Auditor come back with two recommendations on a penalty clause and time frame that can be included in the agreement. Councilmember Thomas stated she would also like the input of the Finance Committee concerning what the penalty fees should be. Councilmember Camicia agreed to include that in his motion if the input could be made by the next meeting. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [See 90-398 for further motion on this matter.] 90-397 From Chief of Police recommending awarding contract to J.W. and Sons Construction, Inc. for the Building Reconstruction: Alameda Police Administration Building, No. P.W. 8-89-14. Bill Simmons, ARCO Electric Company, Vacaville, stated his company was low bidder on the project, was disqualified by City Attorney's recommendation, finding that one of the contractors was not included in the bid and would like to find out the criteria of that. The City Attorney stated Public Contract Code Section 4104 requires that each bidder include the name of each subcontractor who will perform work in the amount over one-half of one percent of the prime contractor's total bid, and in addition Section 4105 forbids a contractor from circumventing the listing requirements by listing a subcontractor who in turn sublets the work to yet another subcontractor. Mr. Simmons stated .05% of the quoted price would be $6593; the contractor in question would be the automatic fire protection; he has a quoted price of $6100 which does not fall within the bounds of the .05% and would like the opportunity to have the bid reviewed June 7, 1990 179 again. Dennis Simone, Project Manager, ARCO Electric, Vacaville, stated he essentially put together the bid and when he put the project together the two essentials considered were the budget and the time frame; reviewed his negotiations for low prices with the subcontractors, and requested Council review the matter again. Councilmember Thomas stated she did not believe it appropriate for the Council to review bids; does not believe Council has the expertise or is the forum for that; believes any concerns of bidders should be taken to the City Attorney, City Manager, and Chief of Police and ironed out beforehand; the question is whether to go with this bid or let the proper forum hear this issue. The City Manager reviewed the background of the matter; noted the Engineering Department and the City Attorney's office had reviewed the matter; and stated he favored the suggestion of Councilmember Thomas that staff can provide the information to ARCO Electric as to why this determination was made and the City Attorney can discuss this with ARCO's attorneys if that is desired. Councilmember Thomas stated there is $167,000 difference and without getting into the issue of responsible bidders which she does not believe is appropriate before Council, the question is whether or not time is of the essence in awarding the contract, to which the City Manager replied, based upon the Police Department requirements and staffing, and paying for Oakland jail service, the matter should go forward. Councilman Arnerich agreed with Councilmember Thomas's comments concerning the propriety of the legality of the bid coming before Council; and if staff is in agreement, he recommends going ahead. The City Manager stated the matter has been discussed with the Public Works Director, the City Attorney, the outside Architect, and all agree the lowest responsible bidder that should receive the bid is J.W. and Sons Construction, and that is the recommendation. Councilman Arnerich moved to accept the recommendation. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was passed by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-398 The City Auditor stated it has come to his attention that the audit cannot start until the contract is signed and he would like Council to reconsider its action [Paragraph No. 90-396)] and, instead, consider giving approval to the contract knowing that the time lines mentioned are already in the contract incorporated by reference, because the proposal and Request For Proposal all contain the time lines, and knowing that he (City Auditor) has agreed to put in a penalty clause up to $200 a day. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to reconsider. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. June 7, 1990 180 Councilmember Camicia moved the recommendation stated by the City Auditor. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion. Councilmember Thomas stated she does not wish to limit the penalty to $200 if it is not found to be an accurate estimate of damages and, believes it would be more appropriate to put in whatever staff recommends is standard in the community. Councilmember Camicia agreed; Councilmember Withrow modified his second, in agreement, and the motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-399 From Acting Planning Director concerning proposed regional land use policy framework for the San Francisco Bay Area. Don Roberts, 880 Portola, stated he agreed with the concerns raised by staff, particularly in regard to the possibility of a regional authority directing Alameda to provide additional housing; he believes the City should be very careful before giving up voluntarily any authority that the City has over housing to a regional agency, and defer any commitment to that type of proposal. President Corica agreed and stated if anything is stated, it would be to the affect that the City does not want any control taken away and the City should decide if it wants to participate or not; if appropriate, perhaps the report should be accepted without action. Councilman Arnerich commented perhaps it would be stronger ground if Council, as noted in the recommendation, indicates its opposition to regional planning. Councilmember Withrow inquired in what way the City would be giving up current controls if it supports revenue sharing between jurisdictions. The City Manager gave an example of nearby cities to illustrate how land use decisions may be based on certain types of revenue desired. Councilmember Withrow further discussed the possibility of funding perhaps being cut off if a local entity does not perform as requested; and the City Manager agreed that is a possibility if the State creates such a situation. President Corica stated that is also his concern. Councilmember Withrow stated he would like Council's feelings conveyed to the regional group that Alameda has its priorities and it is worth a great deal that the City retains control; and moved Council convey to ABAG that Alameda will participate in the regional framework to the extent of talking but not revenue or asset sharing. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion. Councilmember Camicia noted there are 33 members on the Planning Committee list, and queried why Alameda cannot get a member on the Committee; and stated he believes Alameda should have some input June 7, 1990 at the first stage. Councilmember Camicia stated he believes a letter may be appropriate. Councilmember Thomas stated she agrees in concept with the recommendation indicating support for certain things, need to work on the State paying for what they mandate; believes the concept in the recommendation is correct but not the verbiage. Councilmember Withrow stated he would like communication to ABAG expressing that Council does not want to give up the City's prerogatives for controlling the City's values and priorities. Councilmember Thomas stated Councilmember Withrow [Alameda's representative to ABAG] and the Mayor should sign the letter on behalf of Council. The motion participate participate voice vote - [that Council convey to AGAB that Alameda will in discussions, but will not give up local control, nor in revenue or asset sharing] was carried by unanimous 5. 90 -400 Ordinance No. , N.S. "Amending Alameda Municipal Code to prohibit parking at various times and locations to facilitate street sweeping." (Continued from May 15, 1990, Council Meeting) Introduced. The Public Works Director stated he believed almost all the requests which came up at the previous meeting were accommodated, with one exception: Lars Lind wanted a later time for sweeping on Briggs Avenue, however, adjustment of schedules was attempted but not successful. Councilman Arnerich moved introduction. Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. FINAL PASSAGE OF ORDINANCES 90 -401 Ordinance No. 2486, N.S. Article 1, Sections 2 -116 (Order Order) of the Alameda Municipal Communications, General to items Adopted. "Amending Title II, Chapter 1, of Business) and 2 -117 (Rules of Code pertaining to limiting Oral not on the City Council Agenda." John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, stated he has voiced his concerns on this matter many times before, and considers the legislation a form of censorship. Darlene Banda, 919 Del Mar Avenue, congratulated Councilmember Thomas for her successful bid for nominee of her party for the State Assembly; stated she believes Oral Communications provides a forum; people should not be monitored on what they address under Oral Communications. Don Roberts, 880 Portola Drive, gave an example of when citizens June 7, 1990 182 should be given the opportunity to re- address an issue before Council, and opposed the Ordinance. Councilman Arnerich stated he believes there is a misunderstanding on the ordinance; people are able to speak on agenda items, when citizens have had their input, Council then makes decision; the ordinance addresses the fact that people cannot then come back up and address the items that were agendized and already acted upon. Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, expressed concern that when a matter on the agenda has been continued, a person should be able to come up and speak on it, and possibly correct a mistake that has been made. President Corica stated he does not agree with the ordinance because if someone does not like an action taken, that person should be able to come back and make a statement accordingly. Councilmember Thomas stated she has a problem with the proposed ordinance; believes Mr. Roberts' statement about reconsideration is a perfect example. Following further discussion, Councilmember Camicia stated he cannot remember when anyone has really wanted to speak and the opportunity was denied them; Councilman Arnerich has presented a number of ideas to make the meetings run more efficiently; Oral Communications [General] is an opportunity to speak on an item that is not agendized; when the few exceptions do come up that someone wants Council to reconsider a matter, there should be no problem. Councilmember Camicia moved adoption; Councilmember Withrow seconded the motion which was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, and Withrow - 3. Noes: Councilmember Thomas and President Corica - 2. Absent: None. 90 -402 Ordinance No. 24871 N.S. "Amending Chapter I, Title XI (Zoning) of the Alameda Municipal Code relating to design review, maximum number of stories and height and building coverage." Adopted. Don Patterson, Alameda Board of Realtors, thanked Council for passing the design review section of the ordinance [at the previous Council Meeting]; stated the Alameda Board of Realtors requests those aspects of this ordinance other than design review be held in abeyance until a decision has been made on a certain Senate Bill regarding downzoning, and that the City develop a plan that will address the General Plan Housing Element, implementation of the settlement of the Guyton lawsuit, and the downzoning issue; that a plan be made including a timeline and timeframes, to assure no piecemeal actions are taken, and to avoid any lawsuits and questions raised about the process. The City Manager clarified there is possibly misconception about the City proceeding on downzoning at this time; there is no decision to downzone or revise the zoning at this time; there is no requirement to build the 325 units [Guyton settlement] right June 7, 1990 183 now, so a timetable cannot be done at this time. Ed Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, commented Councilmember Withrow has spoken about consistent policy, but Blayney Dyett consulting firm has been instructed to incorporate a downzoning into the General Plan CLUP revision now underway; the Housing Element, to be consistent, should be downzoned at the same time; Measure A is more vulnerable if the Housing Element is not found in compliance with State law; suggested the Housing Element should be redone, a policy set, and then R -5, R -6, and how any stories may be permitted, can be addressed. Councilmember Withrow asked clarification regarding the Housing Element. The City Manager stated the Housing Element has been approved by Council, submitted to, and reviewed by, Sacramento; the California Department of Housing and Community Development has reviewed it several times and asked for more information; the City is still in the process of providing additional information; final approval has not been received. Councilmember Withrow inquired if the Housing Element has been declared invalid, to which the City Manager responded that the State has stated it cannot be approved without submission of additional information at this time. Councilmember Withrow stated he agrees Council needs to have a plan and must bring things into consistent arrangement; the Strategic Plan should be driving the General Plan, and there should be consistency; Council has already taken a position to do that; and that is one of the reasons Council is moving toward the downzoning issue. Councilmember Withrow commented building height limitations were not discussed by Council; he believes the limitations were passed in a default manner and agreed the limitations should be held in abeyance. The City Attorney, in response to an inquiry from President Corica regarding approved height limits, stated there would be three stories not to exceed forty feet in R -5 zone, and four stories not to exceed fifty feet in R -6 zone. Councilmember Withrow moved to hold that portion [height limitations] of the ordinance in abeyance. President Corica inquired if Council disagreed with the height limitations noted. Councilman Arnerich noted the height limitations were already approved [by Council at the previous Council Meeting) and President Corica agreed. Councilmember Withrow commented the matter was not discussed during the hearing. June 7, 1990 President Corica stated if someone was interested, they would have spoken; and he feels comfortable with the action taken. Councilmember Camicia stated perhaps the subject of the limitations could be discussed immediately. Councilmember Withrow stated he has no problem with the limitations at all; his concern was in terms of the process as he did not believe it was identified as an item for the hearing. Councilmember Thomas stated there was a speaker on the height limitation [on May 15th]. President Corica requested a motion to pass the ordinance. Councilmember Camicia so moved. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Camicia moved continuance of the meeting past 11:00 a.m. Councilman Arnerich seconded the motion which was carried by majority vote. NEW BUSINESS 90 -403 Consideration of nomination for appointments /reappointments to the Planning Board. President Corica nominated Wilfred Hodgkin for reappointment to the Planning Board. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Corica nominated Benjamin Robert Wood on the Planning Board. the motion. Councilmember Withrow inquired if Tilos and President Corica replied Tilos, an architect, to replace Councilmember Thomas seconded President Corica interviewed Mr. in the affirmative. Councilmember Withrow requested information about Mr. Tilos regarding, e.g. decision making; and President Corica responded the selection of an architect was to replace Mr. Wood, he is from the West End, and the City has a large Pilipino community; if Board members are only to be experts, then the matters may as well be left only to staff; if Councilmembers do not approve of the person, they may vote no. Councilmember Withrow stated it is not that he does not approve of Mr. Tilos, it is simply that he does not know the applicant; for the Planning Board in particular, the positions are very important for the City with lasting impact; and he believes Council should spend a few minutes interviewing nominees which the Mayor selects so that Councilmembers may feel comfortable that the individual voted for is consistent with what Councilmembers perceive to be Planning Board meeds; and requested the nomination be held off until Council has the opportunity to interview the applicant. June 7, 1990 President Corica stated all Councilmembers can review all the persons who submitted applications; and the one thing he is looking for is someone who has a desire to serve the City. Councilmember Camicia stated it is not possible to interview thirty applicants between the time the packet is received and the meeting; and suggested perhaps a brief memorandum from the Mayor to Councilmembers noting several nominees being considered, so that it would not be necessary to interview all applicants. Councilman Arnerich agreed a note from President Corica stating who is being considered for nomination would be helpful. Councilmember Camicia suggested perhaps applicants, at the meeting prior to the one at which nominations would be made, could be allowed a few minutes at the podium to speak about themselves. President Corica stated he does not wish to modify a long- standing procedure. President Corica stated he would be reappointing persons, including Mr. Dankworth to the Public Utilities Board for one year. Councilman Arnerich inquired if it is legal to reappoint [a Charter Board Member] for only a one year term; the City Attorney responded she would need to research. Councilman Arnerich suggested the Mayor proceed with the nominations; and the one -year length of term be checked by the City Attorney. The motion for nomination of Benjamin Tilos to the Planning Board was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas and President Corica - 4. Noes: None. Absent: None. Abstentions: Councilmember Withrow - 1. President Corica nominated Ralph Appezzato for appointment to the Planning Board. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -404 Consideration of nomination for reappointment to the Civil Service Board. President Corica nominated Louis C. Steele for reappointment to the Civil Service Board. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -405 Consideration of nomination for reappointment to the Historical Advisory Board. President Corica nominated Paul Breitkopf for reappointment to the Historical Advisory Board. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90 -406 Consideration of nominations for reappointment to the June 7, 1990 186 Housing Commission. President Corica nominated Deanna D. Johe for reappointment to the Housing Commission. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Corica nominated Rosalinda Pantig for reappointment to the Housing Commission. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Corica nominated Charles Tillman for reappointment to the Housing Commission for three years, and it would be necessary to check to see if the three-year term would be legal. The City Attorney stated one option would be to appoint Mr. Tillman for the full term and have him resign after however long he wants to serve. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-407 Consideration of nomination for reappointment to the Library Board. President Corica nominated Rose A. White for reappointment to the Library Board. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 90-408 Consideration of nomination for reappointment to the Public Utilities Board. President Corica nominated Edwin Dankworth for reappointment to the Public Utilities Board for one year because Mr. Dankworth would be serving almost three terms if reappointed to a full term. Councilmember Thomas stated the Public Utilities Board is a Charter Board and there may not be the flexibility to change the length of a term. The City Attorney noted if there is a problem, she will reagendize. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion which was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL 90-409 Diane Coler-Dark, 2857 Jackson Street, Park Street Business Association, expressed gratitude to the City Manager, Public Works Director and Traffic Analyst for their cooperation on the project concerning Parking Lots A and C. 90-410 Bonny Moore, 627 Lincoln Avenue, #22, commented on Councilmember Withrow's recent Times Star article (6-2-90) regarding Measure A and the Guyton Settlement; requested clarification regarding Buena Vista Apartments being low-income housing [prior to implementation of Measure A]; does not believe June 7, 1990 187 City was down low-income housing as specified in the Settlement; questioned why Mr. Guyton's attorney was paid by the City, which was not stated in the Settlement. The City Manager stated staff would respond in writing to Ms. Moore and Council. 90-411 John Scott Graham, 1728 Tregloan Court, suggested Oral Communications, [General) follow Oral Communications, Agenda. 90-412 Edwin Murphy, 2618 Janis Circle, inquired if a Housing Element, which is not in compliance, makes Measure A more vulnerable; if the Guyton Settlement does not require the City to build the 325 units; and, if, as indicated in Councilmember Withrow's article (6-2-90), the 325 units could not be built without a vote of the people. 90-413 Andrew Van Diggelen, 3228 Briggs Avenue, Historical Advisory Board Applicant, stated an interest in serving HAB and community; inquired about Board and Commissioin appointment policy. ADJOURNMENT 90-414 President Corica adjourned the meeting in memory of Nancymarie van Praag, who served as the Director of the Volunteers of America's Midway Center. Respectfully submitted, DIANE B. FELSCH, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance as required by the Brown Act. June 7, 1990