Loading...
2002-08-20 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - AUGUST 20, 2002 - - 7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 7:30 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (02 -385) Presentation by Shirley Gee, International Dragon Boat Association, of the Spirit of the Dragon Award to Mayor Appezzato. Shirley Gee, International Dragon Boat Association, presented Mayor Appezzato with the Spirit of the Dragon Award. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced the Resolution Approving Execution of the Interconnection Agreement Between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Northern California Power Agency [paragraph no 02 -393] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *02 -386) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on July 16, 2002, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on August 6, 2002. Approved. ( *02 -387) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for period ending June 30, 2002. Accepted. ( *02 -388) Recommendation to accept City of Alameda Investment Policy. Accepted. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 August 20, 2002 ( *02 -389) Recommendation to authorize payment of $98,557 for the annual support and licensing of network software to Novell, Inc. for Fiscal Year 2002 -03. Accepted. ( *02 -390) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $157,500 to D'Arcy and Harty Construction, Inc. for Replacement of Sanitary Sewer at Fairview Avenue, No. P.W. 05- 01 -14. Accepted. ( *02 -391) Recommendation to adopt Amendment No. 1 to FY 2002 -03 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan to include Alameda Point Collaborative /Xanthos Head Start Facility, and to authorize Negotiation and Execution of Grant Agreements and Related Documents. Accepted. ( *02 -392) Resolution No. and Authorizing Execution Accepting Dedications an Adopted. 13519 "Approving the Final Map and Bond of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and d Easements for Tract 7302 (Bay Cove) ." (02 -393) Resolution No. 13520 "Approving Execution of the Interconnection Agreement Between Pacific Gas and Electric Company and the Northern California Power Agency (NCPA) and NCPA Participants, and Authorizing Negotiation and Execution of the Scheduling Coordination Program Agreement between NCPA and NCPA Participants." Adopted. Councilmember Johnson inquired about the duration of the Interconnection Agreement (IA). Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) General Manager responded the IA could be terminated with a three -month notice. Don Dame, Assistant General Manager NCPA, stated the IA cannot be terminated during the first two years. Councilmember Johnson inquired as to how long the City will be protected from rate increases. Alameda Power & Telecom General Manger responded the contract can be terminated or renegotiated; further stated there is no definite end of term for the contract. Mr. Dame stated that under the new arrangement rates are paid to the newly formed California Independent System Operator (CAISO), which has a monopoly as the control area operator in northern California. Councilmember Johnson stated Alameda's residents should continue to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 August 20, 2002 be shielded from fluctuating electric rates; further inquired whether there are alternatives to the IA. AP &T General Manger responded the alternatives are too costly; further stated the NCPA is exploring other alternatives. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ( *02 -394) Resolution No 13521 "Authorizing the Extension of the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program Until May, 2013." Adopted. ( *02 -395) Resolution No. 13522 "Authorizing Open Market Purchase from Mox Systems for a Golf Management System for the Chuck Corica Golf Complex Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the City Charter." Adopted. ( *02 -396) Ratified Bills in the amount of $ 2,456,100.43. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (02 -397) Public Hearing to consider a Call for Review of a Planning Board decision denying Variance, V02 -0006, and Major Design Review, DR02 -0031, to allow construction of a two -story addition and second -story deck /stairway which would encroach 12 feet into the required 20 -foot rear yard setback and be located l'- 6" from an existing accessory building where a separation of five feet is required. Because the addition would include increasing the height of a wall located within three feet, nine inches from the northerly side property line, where a seven -foot setback is required, a finding must be made pursuant to Section 30- 5.7(k) &(1), that no adverse effects such as shading, view blockage, or privacy reduction would occur on adjoining properties. The residence located at 3331 Fernside is one of two single- family residences located on a 7,626 square foot parcel abutting the Alameda estuary within the R -2, Two - Family Residence Zoning District; and (02 -397A) Resolution No. 13523, "Approving Variance, V02 -0006, Major Design Review, DR02 -0031, and Findings Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -5.7 (K) and (L) at 3331 Fernside Boulevard." Adopted. Councilmember Johnson stated that she called the matter for review because setback standards mitigate distance and impact between neighbors; the property has no rear neighbor. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 August 20, 2002 Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents Linda Soulages, Alameda; Will Harrison, Alameda; and Pat Plowman, Applicant. Opponents None. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Johnson stated the project is along the shoreline; there does not appear to be any impact on the side neighbors; both side neighbors support the project; a deck does not impact how big the yard appears; the property line seems much deeper; the lot is 7626 square feet; minimum lot size requirements allow one structure per 2000 square feet; the subject property is much bigger; the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) issue was raised by Planning staff; BCDC commented that the area would probably not be a priority area for public access; the area was developed long ago and there is no way a public path could be installed unless a dock structure was built; that she supports public access to the water; however, the project is in an old area of Alameda where public access will not happen; the applicant will have to go through the BCDC process; the City should allow the project because BCDC will make a decision; BCDC will either approve or not approve the project; there is no impact on neighbors; looking from the subject property, there are other structures on other lots that are built either to the sea wall or beyond the sea wall; people want to take advantage of the waterfront; the Planning Board will be reviewing the zoning of waterfront lots; the same zoning requirements might not be needed for the estuary and lagoons; a project like this might not be appropriate for the lagoon; the property owner should be allowed to make the improvements; at the Planning Board meeting, the findings suggested by Mr. Harrison meet requirements; out of three required findings, the Planning Board only could not make one [finding] . Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution [approving Variance, V02 -0006, Major Design Review, DR02 -0031, and Findings Pursuant to Alameda Municipal Code Section 30 -5.7 (K) and (L) at 3331 Fernside Boulevard]. Councilmember Kerr stated the Planning Board's strict interpretation of setbacks was correct; the Zoning Code would allow the property owner to build the house up [to two- story] ; to make Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 August 20, 2002 the existing house a two -story house would impact the neighbors more seriously in the areas of shading and light, which are in the Zoning Code; a two -story addition immediately adjacent to the property on the east would actually block more [light]; there is a requirement that people not be prohibited from enjoying the same use of their property as other people in the neighborhood; the properties have been building out to the bulkhead all along the estuary; it is common and is not the exception; the strict application of the Zoning Code in this case would affect the neighbors more severely than allowing a rear addition; the project is a two -story addition, however the lot slopes down and the roof line will not be much higher than the existing roof line; the view from the house on the eastern side should not be impacted; the properties on the estuary are unusual; the proposal is not to build out to the bulkhead and does not extend as far out [to bulkhead] as some of the other properties; the request is reasonable; a strict application [of the Zoning Code] would do more harm to the neighbors than allowing the project. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated eight years ago a Fernside Boulevard resident requested a variance to build out into the yard; the request was denied; most requests from Fernside Boulevard residents have been denied, which is unfortunate; the property owner has lived there for 30 years; the proposed new addition is not being used to sell the property to make money; there are properties already up and down Fernside Boulevard built out to the bulkhead; the house almost right next door has a patio across the entire lot; there is a problem plaguing the street [Fernside Boulevard], which needs to be straightened out; a City regulation says people cannot build out without a variance; voting to allow the variance disobeys City regulations and violates the City's own laws; the Code needs to be corrected; all of the people along the estuary should have the same rights and privileges; the project should go forward, however it is illegal according to the City Code. Mayor Appezzato noted the Code is being reviewed. Councilmember Johnson stated that she agreed to call the matter for review because she wanted to highlight the situation on Fernside Boulevard; the Planning Board has put a process in place to review the zoning on waterfront areas; requested staff to call attention to the Planning Board that different types of waterways in Alameda need to be reviewed; waterways need to be looked at differently; the zoning regulations on one type of waterway should not necessarily apply to another type of waterway; waterways should be reviewed independently. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 August 20, 2002 Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated that she can make the findings to authorize the variance due to shading and lighting in particular; sometimes strict interpretation of the Code is worse; thanked the Planning Board for doing their job. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the regulation should be changed to do things legally; although he is in favor of the project, he will vote no because the regulation should be reviewed; the City should be consistent. Councilmember Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Kerr regarding the Planning Board doing its job; Council was able to make the finding to permit the variance. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson, Kerr, and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor DeWitt - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (02 -398) Camilla Whyte, Alameda, discussed her concerns regarding the cellular phone antenna proposed for Krusi Park; stated the Krusi family gifted the land to the City expressly for park services; further stated that she has concerns regarding the effects of cellular telephone transmissions on children. (02 -399) Mark Zou, Alameda, discussed Falun Gong practices; stated Congress passed Resolution 188 supporting Falun Gong; urged Council to support Falun Gong. (02 -400) Andrew Ellsnore, Alameda, discussed Falun Gong practices and activities in the United States; provided handouts to the City Council. (02 -401) Rob Siltanen, Alameda, noted that he submitted a letter to Council regarding re- zoning Santa Clara Avenue west of Webster Street; thanked Council for directing staff to address the matter at the previous Council meeting; stated the matter should be placed on a Planning Board agenda. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (02 -402) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. Mayor Appezzato nominated Robert Hessler and Sherri Stieg for reappointment and Jeff Holzman for appointment to the Economic Development Commission. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 August 20, 2002 (02 -403) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Golf Commission. Mayor Appezzato nominated Betsy Gammell for appointment to the Golf Commission. (02 -404) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission. Mayor Appezzato nominated Kirk D. Elliott, Christine Johnson, and George Oliver for reappointment to the Recreation and Park Commission. (02 -405) Consideration of increasing notification requirements in the development code for new Projects. Councilmember Kerr stated there have been several serious concerns about notification on some of the projects that have come before Council; some notification requirements are pretty skimpy; 100 feet does not go very far; for example, [100 -foot notification for] Krusi Park would only include one house after [the width of] the street is measured; the Planning Department properly noticed houses that directly face Krusi Park; however, the City received a lot of communications from houses that do not face the Park; residents were very upset about not being notified; rezoning land in the City can be a very big change; the notification distance for rezoning is only 300 feet, which is not very far for what could be a tremendous change in use; that she provided [Code] sections which should be revised; the State decides the [notification] distance for subdivisions and development agreements; people are concerned that these noticing requirements apply independent of the size of the project; a small change, such as a new deck, will not affect people very far away from the property in question; on the other hand, a twenty -acre project will affect properties much farther away than 300 feet; questioned whether notification requirements should become a function of the size of the property and whether the City should have a much greater noticing distance; stated people are concerned about the lack of advance notice on projects; receiving notice on Friday morning does not provide much time to organize the neighbors; many people do not want to have to organize over the weekend; the matter should be discussed; the Zoning Code states that failure to notice shall not be considered an adequate reason for not continuing the hearing; there is reason for said language; there are a lot of cases where maybe one or two people out of a large number did not receive notices with one third of both tenants and homeowners moving every year; noticing will not reach everybody; however, she questions whether the City should require Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 August 20, 2002 re- noticing and a delay of the hearing when an entire homeowners' association does not receive a notice or when over 100, 200 or 500 of the people do not receive the notice. Mayor Appezzato stated the City Manager should review the matter and bring it back to Council. Councilmember Johnson requested staff to address the cellular antenna notice issue when the matter returns to Council, including whether the City Manager or Council should authorize installation of cellular antenna. Deb Greene, Estuary Park Action Committee, stated that she lives half a mile from the new Marina Cove construction and two blocks from the new 155 -unit development; that she was not informed of either project; as an Alameda resident, she is affected by any changes to the Island; requested that she be notified of major developments in the City. Joe Woodard, Estuary Park Action Committee, stated developments impacting quality of life on the Island should involve the people affected in the decision - making processes; notification has to be broader. Andrea Scarnecchia, Citizens of Alameda for Responsible Development, requested Council improve current noticing requirements to assist the Council, Planning Board, City staff and the community in making decisions; requested timely community involvement and feedback on significant developments before a project progresses; stated the [notification] radius should be expanded for large impact projects; there should be greater lead time and homeowner associations should be notified. Debra Arbuckle, Neighborhood Network, stated that she has concerns regarding noticing requirements; only homeowners are notified and there are many long -term renters interested in the community; notices look like junk mail and should be more consistent; notification distance should be expanded. Noel Folsom, Alameda, stated different projects require different notification; requested Council to increase the distances on noticing requirements for projects on public property. Dorothy Yetter, Alameda, stated current projects in development; plan to address the issue. that she has concerns regarding requested Council to develop a Mrs. Dawdy, Alameda, stated notification should be increased to Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 August 20, 2002 1,000 feet or two blocks and should occur at the time people submit applications. Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated notification in her neighborhood has been on telephone poles; requested longer notice periods and expanded areas and notification to homeowner associations. Tom Pavletic, Alameda, stated speakers have noted the flaws in the Municipal Code; requested Council to solicit a clear timeline on when flaws in notifications will be remedied from staff; thanked Councilmember Kerr for placing the matter on the agenda; suggested the noticing requirement have a qualitative trigger. Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council needs to establish a plan and timeline; City staff should develop a timeline to ensure the City will begin to address flaws, such as: telephone pole notices, school notices, uniform notices, renters, homeowner associations, notices being calibrated to the size of projects, public properties, newspapers, telephone call notices and longer noticing periods; the initial set of questions have been identified; staff should hold possibly two community meetings and gather more information; then, the City can begin to hammer out changes within a very definite timeline. Councilmember Kerr stated that she does not like things that are unclear; the distances and hard information in the Code protects Alameda residents; the discussion should not deteriorate into broad generalities. Councilmember Daysog stated that he concurs with Councilmember Kerr; however, people were not speaking in generalities, they have very specific points; the question is whether all these issues should be addressed at once or whether the 1,000 -feet issue should be addressed on a stand -alone basis; it is more strategic to deal with these very concrete issues all at once. Councilmember Kerr stated the appropriate hearing spot for the matter is the Planning Board; the City has an excellent Planning Board; people should have an alarm go off when they receive Planning Department envelopes; possibly envelopes could read: "Change in Your Neighborhood;" telephone pole notices are the only way tenants get notified; the matter should go to the Planning Board for a well- noticed public hearing; maybe there could be an advertisement in the newspaper to ensure everyone knows about the hearing; all the people who spoke tonight should be notified; there should be notices sent to all homeowners associations; an extremely well noticed Planning Board hearing would be her preference; residents have asked for a specific plan; requested the City Manager to report back to us with a plan and let the people here Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 August 20, 2002 who spoke know what is going on; stated that she could like to make a motion. Vice Mayor DeWitt inquired whether a motion could be made under Council Communications. Councilmember Kerr noted a motion was made at a previous meeting when Councilmember Daysog placed an item under Council Communications. The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back with a staff report. The Assistant City Attorney stated Council can give direction to staff to come back later with something on which the Council can take future action. Councilmember Kerr stated that when Councilmember Daysog had an item placed under Council Communications, there could be a vote because the title was on the agenda. Councilmember Daysog confirmed that there was a vote the matter he placed under Council Communications. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember Kerr desired for the City Manager to bring the matter back as a staff report, to which Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr moved that Council be informed of the plan and everybody who spoke tonight be notified; stated that her motion was not to amend the Alameda Municipal Code tonight. Councilmember Daysog stated Councilmember Kerr's document in the packet is very specific as to the types of projects which should require 1000 -foot notice; inquired whether there are issues beyond Councilmember Kerr's document. Councilmember Kerr responded in the affirmative; stated that there were several concrete issues raised tonight, including timing of the notices, the form of notices and others. Councilmember Daysog noted that he made a similar request two weeks ago and requested board and commission involvement. The City Manager stated that he would bring a report back to Council with a plan and recommendation; Council can endorse [the plan] and staff can move forward from that point to address the questions raised by members of the community and the City Council. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 August 20, 2002 Vice Mayor DeWitt noted the matter might have been better placed as an Agenda Item, rather than Council Communication. Councilmember Kerr noted that she requested the matter be placed under Agenda Items, rather than Council Communications. (02 -406) Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the Development Services Department announced that Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) is holding two workshops regarding the availability of twelve affordable new homes located at Marina Cove. (02 -407) Vice Mayor DeWitt requested the Transportation Commission to address Buena Vista Avenue traffic complaints. (02 -408) Councilmember Kerr stated Assembly Bill 1866 and Assembly Bill 2292 did not pass in Sacramento last week, which was a victory for local control. (02 -409) Councilmember Johnson requested the Transportation Commission to address bus shelter issues at its first meeting on September 11, 2002. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular Meeting at 8:58 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 August 20, 2002