Loading...
1987-10-06 Regular CC MinutesREGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OP ALAMEDA HELD - - ----- TUESDAY OCTOBER 6, 1987 The meeting convened at 7:55 p.m. (at the conclusion of the Closed Session to discuss personnel matters, and the meeting of the Housing Authority Commission) with President Corica presiding. The Pledge of Allegiance was given by Councilmember Thomas. Reverend Jack Huttinga gave the invocation. ROLL CALL- Present: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, Monsef, Thomas and President Corica - 5. Absent: None. MINUTES Councilmember Monsef made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Council Meeting of September 4, 1987 and the Regular Council Meeting of September 15, 1987, and Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion. The motion for the September 4, 1987, meeting was carried by the following voice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Monsef, Thomas and President Corica 4. Noes: None. Abstentions: Councilmember Haugner (due to her absence from the meeting) - 1. The motion for the September 15, 1987, meeting was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. RESOLUTION 87-692 Resolution No. "Adopting plans and specifications and calling for bids for Santa Clara Avenue Sanitary Sewer Extension, P.W. No. 9-87-22, and directing City Clerk to advertise same." Held. President Corica announced that the resolution noted above (Item No. 12 on the agenda) would be carried over to the next Council Meeting because the person who is affected is not able to respond at this time. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Thomas requested Item No. 1-K, regarding bills to be approved, be removed from the Consent Calendar and placed on the regular agenda. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 1-K, Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS *87-693 From City Manager submitting final report on Hazardous Waste Collection Day, June 13, 1987. Accepted. *87-694 From Public Works Director recommending acceptance of work by Wild Horse Engineering Corporation for the repair of Portland Cement Concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter and driveway, P.W. No. 9-86-35. Accepted. RESOLUTIONS *87-695 Resolution No. 11307 "Authorizing appropriation of funds from the Narcotic Asset Seizure Fund for the rental of four (4) telephone pagers." Adopted. *87-696 Resolution No. 11308 "Authorizing open market purchase of one (1) parking enforcement vehicle for the Police Department." Adopted. *87-697 Resolution No. 11309 "Authorizing open market purchase of communications equipment for the Police Department. Adopted. *87-698 Resolution No. 11310 "Awarding contract to J & L Paving & Sealcoating, Inc. for minor street patching with asphalt concrete for fiscal year ending June 30, 1988, and for fiscal year ending June 30, 1989, P.W. No. 7-87-17, and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted. *87-699 Resolution No. 11311 "Awarding contract to National Surfacing Company, Inc. for resurfacing of tennis courts at Krusi and Longfellow Parks and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted. 7 *87-700 Resolution No. 11312 "Approving the application and assurances for grant funds under the Coastal Conservancy Access Grants Program for development of the bicycle staging area." Adopted. *87-701 Resolution No. 11313 "Authorizing allocation of funds from the Golf Course Enterprise Account for the installation of an automatic irrigation system on two holes of the Jack Clark Golf Course." Adopted. *87-702 Resolution No. 11314 "Awarding contract to O.C. Jones and Sons for Constitution Way, Phase IIIB, street construction, P.W. No. 8-87-20, and authorizing execution thereof." Adopted. RETURN TO THE REGULAR AGENDA 87-703 President Corica announced that this week (October 4 - 10) has been proclaimed Public Power Week in the City of Alameda; that the Bureau of Electricity is the oldest public utility in the State of California, and one of the oldest in the nation; and read the related proclamation. Mrs. Maerose Humphreys, Assistant to the General Manager of the Bureau of Electricity, thanked the Mayor and the Council, and stated the Library has a display of historical note regarding the electrical system. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 87 -704 From Lionel J. Wilson, Mayor of Oakland, requesting support of the position of the Oakland City Council in opposition to Tri- Valley Wastewater Authority (TWA) proposed sewer construction. The Public Works Director explained the subject; noted the request is for advisory comment only, Oakland does not want it to go through their City; there will be lower rates in the future, although there will be connection fees; and staff recommendation to Council is to not go on record favoring this unless a dredging operation in San Leandro to mitigate any problems from that area, is part of the project. Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, stated a problem that could affect Alameda is that the proposed sewer construction in the San Ramon - Livermore Valley area is a size designed to be much larger than necessary for the present occupants which will make it possible for more development which then would increase the demand for East Bay water; that there has already been a demand to mix with East Bay Municipal District water; and believes Contra Costa County should clean up its own water. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to concur with the Public Works Director's recommendation. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87 -705 From Rosalie McPherson, President, Alameda Alliance of Homeowners, P.O. Box 4020, regarding the Harbor Bay Isle Business Park. Rae Beauregard -Sund, 149 Inverness Way, stated she was speaking for Mrs. McPherson on behalf of the Alameda Alliance of Homeowners; that, regarding the Bioscience Center being considered for the Harbor Bay Business Park, the Center can become a showcase but questions general knowledge regarding biotechnology; referred to a San Francisco Chronicle article which notes the public is wary of bioscience technology, a Montana researcher conducted unauthorized tests of a genetically altered bacterium; national debate about biotechnology is already polarized, biotech companies must be open to the media and others, and there needs to be an informed public; and stated if biotechnology is to be part of Alameda's future, plans must be made now for the proper way to regulate this controversial industry. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to accept the communication. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87 -706 From J. Paul Gutleben, 2844 San Jose Avenue, requesting that Zoning Ordinance Nos. 724 and 725 be reinstated, and expressing concern regarding noise in the neighborhood. Mr. Gutleben stated the neighborhood was first residential and agricultural but zoning has been changed a number of times; there is now a garage where cars are worked on in the street, no fence around junk cars, and illegal parking in the area; the Planning Board should look into it; and there is no decision yet from the judge before whom the City's court case is being heard. - Councilmember Thomas noted that Court Commissioner Rasch requested a copy of the old ordinance, prior to the change, which would help him to make a decision. Maartin Roosenschoon, 1916 Stanford Street, Foreign Car Service Center, stated he works on cars in streets only if they cannot run; does not work until 2:30 a.m.; the old cars in the yard are for repair and are waiting for parts; and Council should talk to people in the neighborhood before deciding on a zoning change. Walter Manasewitsch, 1919 Stanford Stret, stated he would like to support reinstatement of ordinance sections because there is a junkyard, plates are expired on cars, he has pictures of work being done on cars in the street, the owner has mechanics working late and seven days a week; also, regarding noise, Cable employees are loud and use profane language when coming to and going from work, bar patrons are very noisy even late at night; and requested Council spend time at his home to view what is happening. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the communication and request the City Manager propose a specific solution to this problem as soon as possible. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87 -707 From Church Women United, Alameda Council, 2441 San Jose Avenue, voicing support for the tenants of the Buena Vista Apartments. Councilmember Monsef made a motion to accept the communication. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87 -708 From Michael Rawson, Legal Aid Society of Alameda County, 4450 East 14th Street, Oakland, CA 94601, requesting adoption of moratorium ordinance regarding Buena Vista Apartments. Mr. Rawson commented the requested moratorium ordinance is not necessary because of President Corica's action in Washington as the rent increases have been forestalled; requested Council prepare an ordinance, just in case negotiations fall through, which would require that when there are major rent increases they be phased in over a long period of time. Wally Lee, 1322 Webster Street, Room 210 Oakland, Asian Law Caucus, stated he fully supports the proposal of the Legal Aid Society in their request; that people should be put before profit, Gersten will continue to make a profit; and requests Council to put its power behind the people. Clayton Guyton, 457 Buena Vista, Apt #315, commended the Mayor for his trip to Washington, D.C.; stated the proposed ordinance is needed; and listed a number of safety factors that need to be taken care of at the Buena Vista Apartments, i.e., exposed wires, elevators and fire alarms not working, plumbing problems, etc. Modessa Henderson, Buena Vista Apartments, No 105, requested the ordinance be considered; stated there are 368 families to which vouchers will not apply; thanked the Mayor for his efforts, stated matter is urgent and requested Council not wait for January to act. Larry Schleininger, 457 Buena Vista, noted newspaper articles indicating helicopter squadrons may tighten housing, and the people need Council's help and need the ordinance. Jean Jacobs, 459 Buena Vista, stated the manager at the complex kept apartments in good condition when the complex was first begun but the place has deteriorated ever since; that Gersten does not keep up the maintenance and the complex is in very bad condition. President Corica stated Council has heard the pleas for help, are concerned and trying to help; that HUD, Gersten, and district representatives worked together and all helped to get it done; Gersten agreed to roll back the proposed increase to January; as soon as the vouchers are intact, Council will work on what can be done for others in the units; regarding disrepair, Gersten has stated they will be rehabilitating, and Council is working on the matter; regarding ordinance proposal, rent control has been worked on a number of times but has never been successful and he does not feel the ordinance will handle the matter. Councilmember Monsef stated he agreed with President Corica, commended him for efforts in Washington and securing of vouchers; agreed now is not the time to go further; and moved that the Council accept the communication. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion. Councilmember Haugner stated Council does care, they have all worked hard on the matter, she has been impressed with the people of the Buena Vista Apartments and hopes something can be worked out by January 1st. The motion was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. President Corica announced that Pat Uteck, Councilmember and Mayor, from the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, is in attendance at the meeting. 87 -709 From Carroll E. Harrington, Ph.D., Alameda Soccer Club, 3230 Fernside Boulevard, requesting adequate soccer fields for Alameda children. Dr., Harrington stated there is a great deal of parental interest in soccer, including many Naval personnel, no soccer field that is adequate, approximately 600 in club and if it continues its growth pattern, 1600 in a few years; ten areas controlled by five government agencies; immediate relief needed by getting permission to use Little League fields, and help from Parks and Recreation Commission and Council; teams are not permitted to chalk fields because of other sports; a regulation field is needed; four agencies pay for the field at Alameda College; Navy and several private groups have offered to help; for long-term relief, suggested looking into Livermore to see how their complex is assembled and also would like a soccer person or two on Parks & Recreation Commission. Bob Harrington, 3230 Fernside Boulevard, 13, attends Lincoln School, is triple A select soccer player, plays in many sports, 8 yrs ago started soccer as bat boy and stated the sport has molded him into being an all-round athlete; and soccer is important to the lives of participants. Karen Harrington, 3230 Fernside Boulevard, stated there is no home field, which should be usable all day Saturday and certain hours during the week; that a standard soccer field for 10 year olds is as long as a football field and 30 ft wide; the only large space currently available is College of Alameda which leases to cities outside Alameda for Little League; the home field of Alameda High School girls is in Oakland on 18th St., near the Southern Pacific railroad; and there should be a place in Alameda. Michelle Baker, 1940 Franciscan Way, #205, stated she has been playing with soccer club for five years and in the five years, they have never had a soccer field; they have had only one game at their home town college; there are baseball fields, tennis courts and golf courses but no soccer fields; and on behalf of team stated there should be one. Bud Brandenberger, 3257 Central Avenue, stated there are lovely parks in area, but the City lacks soccer fields; soccer is a growing sport; and requested Council give it consideration. Laurie Frye, 50 Moss Pointe, stated there were many playing fields in Texas; is a coach, coordinates soccer for under 10-year-olds; has two children that play: hopes soccer can become a part of Parks and Recreation; and believes it important because every child can play soccer, even some who have disabilities. Evan Harrington, 3230 Fernside Boulevard, plays on Godfrey Field; next year he will be 10, and will play in the higher division; and requested Council help them find a home field as good as Godfrey Field. Councilmember Thomas stated that she toured the fields; spaces are cramped, water is on every field, two inches of water on many fields creating muddy fields; believes it is a big problem needing study; suggested in the interim, that the School District be contacted for use of Little League fields which otherwise will lie dormant until spring; should refer matter to Parks and Recreation Commission, not allow Alameda's children bumped for benefit of teams from other Cities; suggested the Commission investigate the future school site on Bay Farm Island; and noted from Parks & Recreation minutes that summer baseball has declining enrollment 7 2 emphasis may be changing. TLo City Manager questioned what the reciprocation would be with other cities playing on Alameda fields as Alameda plays on theirs. Ccuncilmember Thomas noted it is probably too late for this year; tat it should be a planning situation; but watering needs to be stopped until Saturday evenings and grass should be cut shorter. Councilmember Haugner stated she agrees with Councilmember Thomas's remarks and further commented that there are few who can participate in Little League while soccer is of great benefit to many people. Ccuncilmember Thomas made a motion to accept the communication and direct Parks and Recreation agendize the matter as soon as possible and start investigating. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion ana it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. E--710 From Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, requesting proposed arendments to the General Plan of the City, and other applicable documents. Mr. Scullin referred to the report from the Community Development :rector which stated that no Council action is necessary as a revision of the General Plan will be done which will address the issue of hazardous waste management and disposal; stated he believes more should be done; noted Councilmember Monsef, a number of years ago, stated he felt the City had a responsibility to look i-to the matter, but others on Council at that time did not agree; believes Councilmember Monsef also requested staff prepare a draft ordinance on hazardous waste; in 1986, Councilmember Lucas requested dumping of toxic waste be investigated and requested results of tests near the military base; suggested Council achieve some kind of communication with David C. Nunencamp, State Office of Planning and Research or the person whose name and number Mr. N=encamp provided. Councilmember Thomas stated Mr. Scullin's history on the subject i- accurate; that she requested on May 19 that an ordinance be drafted; that she has discussed the matter with the City Attorney several times and received from the Fire Department, a copy of the Uniform Fire Code which contains a comprehensive ordinance; the City Attorney is looking into the matter. Councilmember Monsef stated Mr. Scullin is correct; that he had requested the ordinance for hazardous waste in 1986. Ccuncilmember Thomas made a motion to accept the communication. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-711 From Supervisor Carol Ruth Silver, Board of Supervisors, CL1.-y and County of San Francisco, regarding Federal corporate pre-emption amendments. Wayne Pearce, 1136 Fontana Drive, stated about two years ago, Lucky's Stores suffered possible takeover which forced them to close Gemco putting about 8500 people out of work; and.believes if Council can do something, it will be worthwhile. Councilmember Camicia made a motion that the communication be accepted and Supervisor Silver's requested letter be written. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87-712 From Recreation and Parks Director regarding the landscaping of Portola Triangle. Councilmember Thomas stated she had a concern that a special assessment district is being requested; believes, in this case where everyone uses the area, it is a burden to adjacent landowners who already contribute time and money; believes City should pick up tab on this small area. Councilmember Haugner stated she also is concerned, but wonders if it can be done, to which the City Manager replied affirmatively. Councilmember Monsef inquired whether the East Bay Municipal District (EBMUD) contribution was toward the annual or initial cost. The Parks and Recreation Director stated EBMUD has a subcommittee which, if it approves the project, will have a landscape architect funded by EBMUD that will do the design, the planting plan, the design drawings, the irrigation, and develop cost estimates; and will make some financial contribution, possibly approximately $5,000.00, but nothing toward the annual maintenance. Councilmember Monsef noted homeowners once stated they would contribute, and added he does agree with Councilmember Thomas' remarks regarding an assessment district. The City Manager noted that the City of Rancho Cucamonga has a three mile radius for their assessment district for parks. Councilmember Thomas stated she did not want to single out the Portola Triangle; if there is to be a policy, it should be City-wide, and parks used by neighbors would be more appropriate. President Corica stated it is costly to maintain parks and believes junipers or something similar should be planted which require only the use of an automatic sprinkler; and such planting would be best because it would require little or no maintenance, would be green, and would keep people from walking through. Councilmember Camicia stated that idea is as good as any he has heard. Flora Allen, Westline Drive, stated the Portola Triangle costs her about 830.00 a month, agrees with the idea of junipers, suggests that rocks be used with the junipers, and stated she is willing to continue planting and caring for her flowers. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to accept the report and recommendation except for the Assessment District, with special attention to EBMUD, rocks and junipers. Councilmember Camicia stated that with regard to the assessment districts there is the possibility that there may be tax savings, and perhaps Council should see what they are. Councilmember Haugner stated the assessment district would stretch three miles which does not seem fair, and inquired what people from the area who are present think about an assessment district. Gerhard Degemann, 304 Sand Beach Road, stated the reason why it is a three mile radius is because the people in Rancho Cucamonga live far apart and do not have the density of Alameda. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-713 From Public Works Director on number of legal units in a structure. Councilmember Camicia stated he would abstain from voting on this matter. Councilmember Thomas stated she also would abstain. Don Patterson, 1256 Sherman Street, Alameda Board of Realtors, offered the cooperation of the Board of Realtors in reaching an appropriate answer; and stated it is a growing concern to be addressed regarding disclosure and assurance for owners that they can rebuild in case of destruction of structures by fire. Councilmember Monsef stated he does not see any problem in requesting staff to work with the Board of Realtors and make recommendation to Council, and made a motion to accept the report and recommendation. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers Haugner, Monsef and President Corica - 3. Noes: None. Abstentions: Councilmembers Joseph Camicia and Barbara Thomas - 2. RESOLUTIONS 87-714 Resolution No. 11315 "In support of Measure C which will increase the County's appropriations limit as allowed by Article XIII B of the California Constitution." Adopted. President Corica noted that the Cities represented at the Mayor's Conference were unanimous in their resolution of support. Councilmember Camicia made a motion to accept the resolution. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Camicia, Haugner, Monsef and President Corica - 4. Noes: Councilmember.Thomas - 1. Abstentions: None. 87-715 Resolution No. 11316 "Declaring week of October 4 through October 10, 1987 as California's "Coastweek" and October 10, 1987, as "Adopt-A-Beach Coastal Cleanup Day." Adopted. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Haugner seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. 87-716 Resolution No. "Approving Parcel Map 5169 for division of residential property within the development known as "Normandy," located at the terminus of Sath Court, permitting recording thereof, and accepting certain dedicated easements (Doric Development, Inc., owner)." Denied. [For discussion regarding this matter, please refer to the attached verbatim.) Councilmember Thomas made a motion to disapprove the Parcel Map 5169 based on the following findings: (1) failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, (2) the density currently proposed is unsuitable for the site and (3) the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion, and it was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Monsef, Thomas, and President Corica - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Abstentions: None. 87-717 Resolution No. "Approving Parcel Map 5170 for division of residential property within the development known as "Normandy," located at the terminus of Remmel Court and permitting recording thereof (Doric Development, Inc., owner)." Denied. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to disapprove the Parcel Map 5170 based on the following findings: (1) failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, (2) the density currently proposed is unsuitable for the site and (3) the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion and it was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Monsef, Thomas, and President Corica - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Abstentions: None. 87-718 Resolution No. "Approving Parcel Map 5171 for division of residential property within the development known as "Normandy," located at the terminus of Christensen Court, permitting recording thereof, and accepting certain dedicated easements (Doric Development, Inc., owner)." Denied. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to disapprove the Parcel Map based on the following findings: (1) failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, (2) the density currently proposed is unsuitable for the site and (3) the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan. Councilmember Monsef seconded the motion. [For discussion regarding this matter, please refer to the attached verbatim.] The motion was carried by the following roll call vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Monsef, Thomas, and President Corica - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Camicia and Haugner - 2. Abstentions: None. 87-719 Resolution No. 11317 "Authorizing open market purchase of three (3) undercover vehicles for the Police Department and allocating funds for said vehicles from the Narcotic Asset Seizure Fund." Adopted. President Corica requested the Chief of Police consider the possibility of making the cars suitable for the use of a canine unit when necessary. Councilmember Haugner made a motion to adopt the resolution. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES 87-720 Ordinance No. N.S. "Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by adding Articles 8, 9, and 10 to Chapter 1 of Title IX and amending subsections of Articles 1 and 2 of Chapter 5 of Title I thereof, relating to vicious animals and providing for enforcement by infraction. Held for amendment. Ralph Yandell, 1319 Burbank Street, stated opposition to the ordinance, noting that under the ordinance, an animal control officer would be making arbitrary decisions on whether a dog has a potential to be vicious; people complain about dogs running loose and dogs barking constantly in backyards and nothing is done about it; the dog pound is not able to handle what should be done now; and added that there are limits to putting credence in intuition. Councilmember Haugner questioned the word "apparent" in the ordinance and stated perhaps rewording of the ordinance should be considered. Councilmember Thomas stated the word "provoked" in the ordinance is not defined; there are some defenses in Section 9-185 but it doesn't say anything about dogs watching children which would be a defense; has a problem with Section 9-187 which requires automatic destruction of an animal; favors the concept of the ordinance; and would like an opportunity to work on the wording. Councilmember Haugner stated she agrees that are too many areas that need rewording; and made a motion to hold the matter for two meetings from now with condition that the wording be worked on. 12 The City Attorney stated he would need specific suggestions for changing the ordinance. President Corica suggested the City Attorney work with Councilmembers Haugner and Thomas. The City Manager requested that the Animal Control Officer and a member of the Police Department staff attend the meeting. Councilmember Thomas seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. BILLS *87-721 A List of Claims, certified by the City Manager as correct, was approved in the amount of $2,571,736.50. Councilmember Thomas stated she had a question about a payment to the Chamber of Commerce for the printing of a brochure; believes it is something the City should do, has been informed that the Chamber will be selling the brochure, and inquired if the Chamber should make some payback. The City Manager noted the grant agreement states the brochure would be used by the City also, and the City has received some. Councilmember Thomas made a motion to approve the Bills. Councilmember Camicia seconded the motion and it was carried by unanimous voice Vote - 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 87-722 Councilmember Thomas inquired when the report on Mrs. Ullner's problems will be agendized, to which the City Manager responded that it would be placed on either the October 20th or November 3rd agenda and Mrs. Ullner would be notified. NEW BUSINESS 87-723 Councilmember Haugner referred to Oakland Tribune articles relating to a Helicopter Squadron coming to the Naval Air Station and requested answers to the following questions: (1) Is the October 5th article in the Tribune regarding the housing of military men correct? (2) Are the 644 new homes discussed in the article located in the Bay Area or just Alameda? and, (3) What would be the impact of these homes on traffic, City services and schools? President Corica replied that Navy housing is being planned but it will be on Naval Air Station property. The City Manager added that the Naval Air Station is in the process of establishing a long range plan which will include more housing units, and staff will report on the subject. 87 -724 Councilmember Camicia informed Council that Richard Roth will be addressing the Economic Development Advisory Committee October 15th on revitalization of the West End, and inquired if a specific Council Meeting could be scheduled for that issue. The City Manager responded that a Work Session could be scheduled for the first part of November. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, GENERAL 87 -725 Alex Gould, 612 Waterfall Isle, complained about United Cable's placement of aboveground appurtenances in underground areas. 87 -726 Fred Scullin, 1120 Chestnut Street, commented briefly on the "Normandy" development. Mr. Scullin also discussed his concern for the "little guy" on Park Street as it relates to the enforcement of the City's sign ordinance. He noted Alameda Marina Village's Webster Street sign was originally approved as a temporary sign only and the period terminated August, 1986. ADJOURNMENT President Corica adjourned the meeting at 11:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted,,,, D B. FELSCH City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted 72 hours in advance, in accordance with the Brown Act. 14 VERBATIM REGARDING NORMANDY RESOLUTIONS TTER -87- 716,87- 717,87 -718 OCT. 6, 1987 15. Approving Parcel Map 5169 for division of residential property within the development known as "Normandy," located at the terminus of Sath Court, permitting recording thereof, and accepting certain dedicated easements (Doric Development, Inc., owner). President Corica: We have speakers on this and one speaker wants to address all three items and one just wants to address two, we have Aidan Barry. Aidan Barry: Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. As you stated in the introduction, I would like to, in fact, speak on all three items. The three items before you, speak and talk to the Normandy project which is 164 units, and if I may very briefly, just identify the steps that project has gone through: The PD was established and approved by the Planning Board on January 13, 1986, identified as Resolution No. 1570, the tentative map was approved by the Planning Board on January 27, 1986, Resolution No. 1574. The Council approved that same tentative map on March 5, 1986, Resolution No. 10843. The final map, in conjunction with the two previous documents was approved by Council on December 17, 1986, Resolution 11069. Where we are -- Where that project has gone to to -date is that building permits and improvement plans have, in fact, been approved and construction is, in fact under way. The storm and sanitary system is installed to all 164 units. As a brief up -date, 32 units plus 4 models are currently under physical construction. Two weeks ago, we went out for sale and in eight hours, we had in fact sold all 32 units. As a side note, 18 of those 32 units were in fact sold to Alameda residents. Consistent with the conditions of approval relative to the PD and the tentative map, during the time frame of the approval of the final map and, today's date, three of the, what were identified at that time as the out- parcels which are identified on the board behind you, were in fact required. Consistent with the PD, we went through a PD amendment which received approval on July 27, 1987, Resolution No. 1764, The related parcel maps were approved by the Planning Board on August 24, 1987, Resolutions 1771, 1772, and 1773. We are here this evening to request your support and approval of these parcel maps. As a side note, one of the issues that came up at the last meeting, was specifically an agreement between Normandy and Casitas, the adjoining property. That agreement is in fact in place and executed by both parties and the physical work relative to that agreement, specifically some storm drainage work and the related 15 improvements on the common boundary will start as of tomorrow morning. So with that as a brief update, we request your approval this evening. Thank you. Corica: Thank you very much, Aidan. We have John Dickson. John Dickson: My name is Jack Dickson, 1134 Ballena Boulevard. I put in a speaker's slip because it was my understanding there was a possibility that some legal issues might be addressed, and if they were, I wanted to reserve the ability to speak. But I won't do so unless the issues are raised. Thank you. Councilmember Thomas: Question of Mr. Dickson I guess, and that is, it is my opinion, a tentative map is required and [inaudible]. Are you prepared to waive any objections or -- to the fact that this might be the wrong type of map? Dickson: Waive any objections that we may have? there may be -- I -- Thomas: If this is disapproved are you going to come back with a tentative map? Dickson: If this is disapproved, would we come back with a tentative map? It would depend upon whether or not the basis of the disapproval was that a tentative map was required and not a parcel map, but what the basis of the reasoning was -- I have looked at the issue. I've discussed it briefly with the City Attorney and I don't understand at the moment what the basis for that argument is. City Attorney: It's the counting of lots. The basis -- if your client had owned those lots at the time Normandy was subdivided, then the Normandy lots will have to be counted and you'd be over the four limit then of the five limit. I'm told that the facts are different, that your client did not own those parcels at the time. Dickson: That is correct. and that's my understanding of the Subdivision Map Act; that, if in fact the client had owned all of that property, subdivided the 164 units and then later chosen to subdivide the additional seven lots that are at issue now, that there would have to be a tentative and final map but that was not the case. They did not own it. This was the farm land that was owned by Mr. Karn and other people that was not acquired at the time the original map procedure was underway. And this is why the Planning Department required that when and if those parcels were acquired by the subdivider that they would be, there was a condition of the PD that they'd be included in the PD by amendment, which was what was done. I don't believe that the Map Act requires that the tentative and final map procedure be used simply because there was no common unit ownership of these lands at the time that the Normandy subdivision was subdivided. That was transferred out to a different entity, a different interest, and it is owned by a different entity, and the definition of subdivider in the Map Act is such that it does not include anybody who might ultimately be a partner. In fact, one of the cases goes on to -- that discusses this -- makes it pretty clear that individual partners are not subdividers. It is the entity itself that is the subdivider, and in this case since there was no common unit ownership on the equalized assessment rolls at any time, the tentative map and a final map are not required. City Attorney: And Mrs. Thomas's question then is: prepared to have the Council rule on the parcel maps on the and not come back later and file a tentative map. I mean, willing to be bound by your position that a tentative map appropriate here. You seem to say that. [To Councilmember Do _T understand that's your question? Thomas: Yes. Are you merits, are you is not Thomas] Dickson: My difficulty is, if you are going to rule on the merits, as to whether or not there are grounds for disapproval of the parcel maps other than the fact that they shouldn't have been parcel maps at all, that's one question. But if you turn around and ask me for a waiver and then you say "Ah -ha," - - City Attorney: No. nobody's trying to sandbag you, alright. What Mrs. Thomas is saying -- I have advised the Council it would be prudent to proceed on the parcel maps because if we didn't and you were right, then these things would be automatically approved, so, my advice to the Council is to proceed on the parcel maps. What they don't want is to be sandbagged and then have you come back and ask for a tentative map. In other words, they're worried about the reverse situation. Dickson: Well, I don't understand why that would be a sandbagging position. I mean, if they took the position, and turned us down, and then we went to issue on this, would the Council then reserve the right to contend all the way down the line that the parcel maps were not the proper procedure? City Attorney: No, both sides would have to be bound by the we're - going -to- proceed -on- the - parcel -map theory. That's the point. We want -- If we're going to proceed on the theory of parcel maps, we want you to stick with it too. That's all. Dickson: That everybody concedes that the procedure is proper and what we're talking about are the issues. City Attorney: Right. Irrespective of whether the tentative map was proper or not, we're all willing to be bound by the parcel map proceedings -- both sides. Dickson: Okay. I have a client that I cannot make that decision for, without a moment's consultation. May I do that? City Attorney: Sure. [Off the record] 17 Dickson: The answer is yes. We'll agree to that. Thomas: I have one more question Mr. Dickson. [inaudible] the 164 units plus seven. Is that -- I've seen so many figures. Are we talking about 171 units total -- in this subdivision? Dickson: Well, I'm really the wrong person to ask, and I think Mr. Barry could probably answer that better. It's my understanding that part of those units have in fact been removed -- to do with RV storage or something else, but that's -- Mr. Barry would be much better to answer that. Barry: Aidan Barry again. If I may just briefly answer that: the original PD talked to 164 units through the process identified as the PD amendment. We committed Lots 161 and 162 to RV storage. Then your net lot count would be 164 plus the seven, less the two, so 169 would be the total lot count relative to the -- Thomas: Do you recall what the Negative Declaration addressed in 1981. Barry: No, I don't have that specific information. Thomas: 164 units. Barry: Basically, we were under obligation relative to the PD at such time as the out - parcels were in fact required to come back under a PD amendment process, which was followed. Thomas: Not to subdivide -- only to bring it in as part of the PD. I have some concerns that this map might not be the appropriate -- I didn't find any cases that dealt with the Planned Development with common ownership, but since we are prepared to waive it, I think I will not belabor it. The Negative Dec as I see it, and as I read it, dealt with 164 units, not 169, and I think that needs to be addressed, prior to the approval. I think there was a failure to comply with condition 57 of the Planned Development approval. I think the density as currently proposed is unsuitable for the site. I don't think the proposed map is consistent to our General Plan which sets forth a 5000 square foot area in areas which are outside of Harbor Bay at Bay Farm Island. There are two lots which may approach that, but the other five are totally inadequate and they would in fact constitute an R -2 zone and not an R -1 zone and this is zoned R -1 PD. I am very concerned that the City's General Plan lacks a mandatory element, the Housing Element -- We have not had our Housing Element updated as was required. We have -- I have talked to the State and it appears that we may not get our Housing Element sanctioned certified for a good period of time. One of the inferences in the -- one of the [inaudible] of the General Plan -- CLUP, is that a density increase be allowed for low income housing, and yet I think the figure I heard was $150,000. I don't know if any of the people who were here -- at the Buena Vista Apartments would be able to afford $150,000 home. I don't think that you should be allowed to increase density providing what the General Plan says you should provide, and that's low income housing. Unfortunately, that was never transformed into a zoning ordinance density benefit as the General Plan, our General Plan, suggested. I did not find that there had been consideration of Government Code 66473.1. Okay. I did not find that. Perhaps you did it and there was just no evidence in there. I did not find an exception to the Subdivision Ordinance for corner lots not being 60 feet. There is a kind of a gross statement that lots can be 50 feet -- less than 50 feet -- but I think that begs the point. Sixty feet is what's required in a corner as per the Subdivision Ordinance and the Zoning Ordinance. There was no exception listed in the subdivision -- in the tentative maps for Ratto Farms -- I just think that was left out. This project was limited as per the PD to 8.5 dwellings per gross acre, and I don't know that you complied with that. I did not find -- I did not have the time to find how you can include the private streets as part of your computation of area. There are some other mandatory elements in the General Plan that I didn't find consistency with -- mainly because I didn't find that our General Plan had them updated. There was a quote from Planning Board member Simmons that you were going to get some low-cost funding through the City for the Ratto project. Do you have anything on that? Probably going back into the early eighties. James B. Davis: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. James B. Davis, attorney for Harbor Bay Isle. What you have just heard, Members of the Council, is just a shotgun attack on issues that were foreclosed before the Planning Board already. Thomas: Mr. Davis, if you would care to respond to the quote from Mr. Simmons, thank you, but if not. Davis: Mr. Mayor, may I address the issue? Thomas: I am not finished. Corica: Want an answer? Davis: We are not going to address Mr. Simmons quote. That's not action taken by the Planning Board, Mr. Mayor. I would like to -® I'll wait until she's through, but I would like to respond when she get's through. Thomas: Respond. Corica: Well, if it is that important, why don't you give us your pitch and then we will -- Davis: Well, what you have heard is a series of shotgun attacks on seven units that we are asking to be approved at the end of this development. All these issues were raised at the Planning Board level, were heard on appeal by the Council, were decided by you and the Planning Board and a final map decision. Every issue she has 19 raised has been -- the time has run on those issues. This matter is completely disposed of right now; we are asking only for approval of a final map, and we ask that you please approve this final map because we have followed every procedure the City has set forth on this development. To raise these issues at this time is improper, past the time that's allowed for it, and its absolutely unfair, Mr. Mayor and Members of the Council. Thank you. CC: Thank you Mr. Davis. Any other comments? Councilmember Camicia: Mr. Mayor. I would like to ask one of my fellow Councilmembers to change your vote. I know last time it was three to two, but let's talk about reality for a minute. We've got people camping out to buy these houses. If you are my age, it's almost literally impossible to buy a house in this town unless you hit the lottery. The only reason I've made my second house payment in life is that I had every relative I happened to be related to, help me buy the place. These houses are $150,000 and people are literally camping out overnight to get a chance to buy them. I don't have too many friends that live in this town that I grew up with because they've all moved to Vacaville and Stockton and Lord knows wherever else to get into the housing market. I mean, we can go on all night about the legal aspects of this, but let's try and help some people get into the housing market that want to stay in Alameda. Corica: Any other comments? If not, I'm going to -- Councilmember Monsef: I think, Mr. Mayor, the only comment I have to make is that I don't think we're trying to perhaps force the people out of Alameda either. I don't think that's the intention of the Council, Joe. Camicia: I understand that, but I understand that these houses are not exactly Beverly Hills, as well, but not all of Alamedans can afford the Gold Coast or the East End or Beverly Hills. There's a way to get into the housing market. This is not a bad product. They do have small streets, but on big streets, you've got major traffic, you've got RVs and everything else. I think we've got a chance to help some people. Thomas. I would -- Mr. Mayor -- I would apologize to Mr. Davis for any unfairness as it may seem, but this is the first time that we've had to look at it. We are a new Council, and if we don't think that what was done previously was correct, I think we have the right and the responsibility to vote accordingly, and I would make a motion to disapprove Parcel Map 5169, based on the following three findings: First, failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Second, the density as currently proposed, is unsuitable for the site and three, the proposed map is not consistent with our General Plan. Davis: Mr. Mayor, the issue of the environmental determination was determined before by the City Council and by the Planning Board and the time has run on that issue. That is an improper objection to raise at this time. The question of density was determined by the Planning Board and the City Council before and that time has run on that issue and that's an improper issue to raise when you are talking about seven lots, and that's all we are talking about here. Those issues are absolutely improper to raise, at the time that we are only complying with the Planning Board and the City Council's direction to come back and fill in those seven lots. That's all we are talking about here. The other part of the project's totally approved. That's action taken by the Council. To raise a Negative Declaration issue based on a difference of three lots is ludicrous at this time, absolutely ludicrous from the legal standpoint. It cannot be done, Mr. Mayor. All you're saying is -- if you take the action that the Vice -Mayor is suggesting, you're going to leave seven holes in the middle of that project, which is directly contrary to what the City Council and the Planning Board has asked to be done. Thomas: That is not true. Davis: That is true. That is exactly true. Thomas: Not true. They requested that it be made part of the Planned Development. Davis: Mr. Mayor, All she is attempting to do is by shotgun is to ruin this project, that the Planning Board has specifically requested that we come back and fill in those little units. All we are talking about are seven units here. Her position is legally incorrect. There is nothing in the Subdivision Map Act that would allow the Council to vote this map down legally and I ask you please not to do that. All you are going to do is require us to have to go to Court and resolve this issue and that's something we should never do. We are following exactly what the Planning Board and the Council has asked us to do in the past. If you do what the Vice -Mayor is doing here, all you're going to do is create a mess for us to straighten out in Court and that's a terrible thing. It's not necessary. It's unreasonable, and please don't do it. Corica: Okay Thomas: Mr. Davis, I am not prepared to change my vote because of a threat of a lawsuit. The City Council -- Davis: I'm not threatening a question of a lawsuit, I'm just talking about a matter of complete and simple fairness. Thomas: They did not require you to subdivide, only to include it as part of the Planned Development. Davis: They asked us to come back with exactly this development that you are being asked to do, as a pure ministerial act this evening. You've -- Corica: Let's stop the discussion between you and Barbara -- Vice -Mayor -- and let's, the Council, take action on this. Monsef: I'll second the motion, Mr. Mayor. Corica: I've got to say that I am not going to vote for it because of the fact that I haven't voted for this project ever, when it was the Ratto Farms, for the reason that I thought that it was time to, even though it's late, very late, for the 20 foot streets, and that's bothered me, and that's the reason I'm probably going to be voting against it, and it has nothing to do with this, because that every time that I have done it, this is what I've done, and so with that, whoever makes the motion, let's make a motion and get this thing over with. Monsef: Well, Mr. Mayor, I seconded the motion because I have to say that I have voted in the past on the tentative maps for similar projects in this City, so for the same reason, I'm going to vote for the motion. Haugner: Excuse me for clarification. You are seconding Barbara's motion. Monsef: I'll second her motion. I did, yes. Corica: What was -- Thomas: The motion was to disapprove, based on three findings. Corica: Okay, I think we ought to have a -- Thomas: There's a motion to disapprove 5169. Item No. 15 only. Corica: I think we ought to have a roll call vote and get it over with. City Clerk: Councilmembers Camicia, Camicia: No City Clerk: Thomas, Thomas: Yes City Clerk: Monsef, Monsef: Yes City Clerk: Haugner, Haugner: No City Clerk: President Corica. Corica: Yes Corica: Okay, we'll move Well, want to go Thomas: Yes, I would -- City Clerk: What is the on to Item No. 16. through all of them? Do you want to read it? pleasure? Corica: Pardon? yes. City Clerk: Item 16 is a resolution approving Parcel Map 5170 for division of residential property within the development known as "Normandy," located at the terminus of Remmel Court and permitting recording thereof (Doric Development, Inc., owner). Thomas: I make the same motion as previously, based on the same findings, substituting Parcel Map No. 5170. Monsef: Second. Corica: Roll call, please. City Clerk: Camicia: No City Clerk: Thomas: Yes City Clerk: Monsef: Yes City Clerk: Haugner: No City Clerk: Councilmembers Camicia, Thomas, Monsef, Haugner, President Corica. Corica: Yes. Item No. 17. City Clerk: Item No. 17 is a resolution approving Parcel Map 5171 for division of residential property within the development known as "Normandy," located at the terminus of Christensen Court, permitting recording thereof, and accepting certain dedicated easements (Doric Development, Inc., owner). Thomas: I would make the same motion, based on the same findings previously, but substituting Parcel Map 5171. Monsef: Second. Camicia: Under discussion I think I'll just take one last shot here. It's hard for me to believe this is happening. I mean, I really can't believe that a group of us who have all got a piece of Alameda, who all have ours, would look at other people who don't have a piece of Alameda, and say, "Fine, take a hike, move somewhere else, you can't live here. Haugner: Since its still under discussion, had I been on the City Council when this was first brought up, I might very well have said, "No, No, No," and maybe I wouldn't have had the kind feelings about people in having a chance to buy a home in Alameda that Mr. Camicia does, but I just feel that we're at a point where we can't do that, and that's the reason that I will vote against the measure. Corica: Roll call. City Clerk: Councilmembers Camicia, Camicia: No City Clerk: Thomas, Thomas: Yes City Clerk: Monsef, Monsef: Yes City Clerk: Haugner, Haugner: No City Clerk: President Corica. Corica: Yes Corica: Move on to Item # 18 please. Davis: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, what are we going to do with those three holes in the middle of the project now that you have voted this down? The rest of the project is approved. You must have some idea in turning us down on these particular seven lots. What are we going to do now? Thomas: Open space is nice. [Fred Scullin approached the podium.] Davis: Would you wait until I get through. Corica: Fred, sit down, please. Davis: What do you expect us to do? You have approved the rest of the project. We've got 162 lots or whatever it is and now we've got seven lots, that we have followed the direction to come up with the Final Map. Now, what do you want us to do with those seven holes in the middle of the project -- those holes in the middle of the project? You must have some idea -- you wouldn't have made that vote. Corica: Jim, I have to tell you that -- you know -- you've heard what I, the reason that I have been voting the way I have, because that's the way I've been -- I Davis: But Chuck, the rest of the project is under construction, it's being built. Now we four, five, six, seven little holes in the based on the action that three of you have absolutely unreasonable. But please tell me, Monsef, what do you want us to put there? approved. It's already 've got one, two, three, middle of the project just taken, which is what's on your mind Mr. Councilmember Monsef: It's your property, it's not mine. Davis: That's not fair, Mr. Monsef, that is not fair, because we have the project completed, approved, and now we've got holes in the middle of it. It's not fair to the people that are buying the units. Monsef: Mr. Mayor, I'll say again, that when the Tentative Map was presented to the Council, I voted against that, and I'm saying . . Davis: You voted for the Final Map, Mr. Monsef, one hundred and . Monsef: That Final Map did not include what you are asking tonight. Corica: Let's not. Lookit. It's over and done with and I guess we're not here, Jim, to tell you . . . Davis: No clue you can give us about what we're to do then, with that. Corica: Okay. No. . . Davis: Thank you. Corica: Thank you.