Loading...
2000-03-07 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY- -MARCH 7, 2000- -7:30 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 8:00 p.m. 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 None. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Appezzato announced the recommendation to adopt Ferry Procurement Documents [paragraph no. 00 -109], and the Ordinance pertaining to the Purchase and Sale Agreement with Harbor Bay Isle Associates [paragraph no. 00 -1101 were removed from the Consent Calender 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.] ( *00 -105) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting (Closed Session), the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting (Closed Session), the Regular City Council Meeting, and the Special City Council Meeting (8:00 p.m.) held on February 15, 2000. Approved. ( *00 -106) Recommendation to approve Midyear Budget Adjustment and authorize creation and /or upgrade of Certain Positions in the Economic Development Division. Accepted. ( *00 -107) Recommendation to accept the work of Sevan Construction Inc. for Renovation of Building 23, Alameda Point, 2401 Monarch Street, No. P.W. 03- 98 -04. Accepted. ( *00 -108) Recommendation to accept the work of State Roofing Systems, Inc., for Veterans' Memorial Building Roof Replacement, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 March 7, 2000 No. P.W. 08- 99 -21. Accepted. (00 -109) Recommendation to adopt Procurement Documents and authorize issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Alameda Oakland Ferry Service Vessel Purchase P.W. No. 02- 00 -04. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the Council is considering procurement of a ferry; hopefully, the ferry will work this time. Cris Kraft, Bay Ship & Yacht, stated the Water Transit Initiative is the next major opportunity in waterborne trades; if the City of Alameda chooses to refurbish a boat, Bay Ship & Yacht is well qualified; if the City decides to build a new vessel, Bay Ship & Yacht would like the opportunity; the job would employ 20 -30 people; Bay Ship & Yacht leased additional space at Alameda Point and is building a dredging hopper [vessel] at said facility; construction of the 300 -foot barge will begin Monday; invited Councilmembers and the public to stop by and see the construction in process; further stated the City's RFP only calls for a demonstration of skills to build the vessel; however, the Water Transit Authority's RFP will probably require that a company has built a ferry boat within the last five years; if Bay Ship & Yacht is going to build ferry boats in Alameda, it needs this job. Mayor Appezzato stated the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is working on a grant to the City of Vallejo for a new ferry boat. Jonathan Newman, Alameda, stated ferry services need more vessels. Mayor Appezzato stated CalTrans awarded the City of Alameda a $4.75 Million Grant to purchase the ferry. Councilmember Kerr stated Bay Ship & Yacht does industrial ship work and has a maintenance contract for the Maritime Museum in San Francisco; the Balclutha tall ship was rebuilt at Bay Ship & Yacht; discussed history of Bay Ship and Yacht's facility. Councilmember Johnson stated Bay Ship & Yacht adds to the island character of Alameda; until there were bridges for cars, everyone in the Bay Area commuted via ferry; there is a shift back toward ferry transit. Councilmember DeWitt moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -110) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Harbor Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 March 7, 2000 Bay Isle Associates to Purchase a 2.2 Acre Parcel for the Cross Airport Roadway Project. Introduced. Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated this is another fine example of the City Council's sense of fiduciary duty to the taxpayers; last August, 10.2 acres of land at Harbor Bay Isle were sold to Harbor Bay Associates (HBA) for $264,000 an acre; the City paid the same price a few years earlier, adjusted for the City's carrying costs; 8 months later, the City is going to pay $648,000 an acre for 2.2 acres of less desirable land; City staff and Councilmembers serving on regional transportation committees should have realized the City would need the 2.2 acre parcel of land for the Cross Airport Roadway last year; inquired why staff did not negotiate a trade of 2.2 acres and sell the remaining 8 acres to HBA for cash, or why the appraiser who set the price of the undevelopable parcel at $648,000 was not hired to determine the value of the City's 10.2 acres on which construction is now taking place; further inquired whether the appraiser's valuation of the piece of land took into consideration the nearly 1/3 cost that the City received for more desirable land in the same area; stated HBA pulled the same rabbit out of its hat before; in 1987, HBA sold 8 acres to the City for a school and received $12.3 Million; $292,500 an acre is only a fraction of what HBA had to pay for school and developer fees, even though the school considerably increased the value of the residential development; the Cross Airport Roadway will enhance the value of the Harbor Bay Business Park; inquired why taxpayers should give HBA a substantial profit on land, turn around and spend more money to create a transportation corridor which will increase the value of Harbor Bay Business Park; suggested Harbor Bay donate the land out of a sense of civic pride and in anticipation of the benefits to its Business Park. Councilmember Kerr stated the City sold 10 acres for $264,000 an acre; the purchase price before Council is $648,000 an acre, which is a difference of $384,000 an acre; the properties are one - quarter mile apart in the same Business Park; requested staff to address the issue. The Public Works Director responded the difference in price is due to: 1) the property sold [by the City] included the debt on the property; the City struck an agreement with Harbor Bay to pay all assessment fees due on the property, which increased the sale price by another $3 per square feet; 2) the agreement was signed in 1997; there has been an increase in property value since 1997; 3) the City's selling process; in 1997, the City entered into an agreement with Grubb & Ellis to list the property; there was not an economic climate; the City only received two Letters of Intent and took the higher offer which was from Harbor Bay. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 March 7, 2000 Councilmember Kerr stated the agreement to pick up the assessments was bound up in the City agreeing to delay property sale since they [Harbor Bay Isle Associates] did not have the money at the time; the difference of $384,000 an acre is a lot of money. The City Manager requested the Public Works Director to confirm whether the Port of Oakland also set the process for the 2.2 acres; stated the City of Alameda was not involved in the appraisal terms and conditions. The Public Works Director stated the Cross Airport Roadway is a joint project with the City of Oakland, the Port of Oakland, the City of Alameda, and Alameda County Transportation Authority; all the parties reviewed the appraisal. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the project is not just for Harbor Bay Business Park; it is also to relieve the traffic which flows from the High Street Bridge via Fernside Boulevard to Bay Farm Island; once the Cross Airport Roadway is in place, the tremendous traffic, which occurs on Fernside Boulevard and the East End during work hours, will be relieved; the process was fair and open; if anyone had questions with respect to the 10.2 acres, there were times to raise questions then; there have been tremendous changes in real estate since 1997; the goal of the Cross Airport Roadway is to relieve traffic on Fernside Boulevard. Mayor Appezzato stated in 1992 or 1993, the City Council bought 10 acres of land for $2 Million to bring a university to Alameda; when the university did not come, the City Council decided to sell the land and hired a real estate firm; the property was advertised for six months and did not sell; there was an opportunity to sell to the people who sold the property to the City at no loss; in 1986, the Measure B half cent sales tax listed the Cross Airport Roadway as a capital project; voters in Alameda supported Measure B; there will not be another roadway in the near future to connect Alameda to the rest of the world; the [Cross Airport] Roadway will not connect with Maitland Drive, it will connect to the Business Park; most residents in the East End and Harbor Bay believe heavy traffic in the East End, Island Drive and Doolittle Drive will be reduced. As a point of order, Mr. Len Grzanka stated the City Charter [Rules of Order] states no one, including the Mayor, may speak for longer than three minutes. Mr. Grzanka further stated that he had a point of information. Mayor Appezzato stated the project has been on the City's books for a long time. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 4 March 7, 2000 Councilmember DeWitt stated funds have been set aside for the purpose of building the Cross Airport Roadway. Councilmember Kerr stated the Staff Report states "existing agreements do not obligate the City to pay for Contracts B & C;" Contracts B & C are the Port of Oakland's responsibility; inquired whether the City has any obligations on Contracts B & C if a notice to proceed is not issued. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated Contracts A, B & C are the sum total of the Cross Airport Roadway, which was approved in 1986 by the voters; the Contract was divided into three phased projects; the City's share of the overall project is $10 Million of the approximately $140 Million project; the City is not obligated to pay unless it benefits; after extensive, protracted negotiations, it was finally agreed: if the City does not receive benefit from the project, it does not have to pay for projects which benefit the Port of Oakland and the City of Oakland. The Public Works Director stated the project phases; however, the City is responsible for project; the Staff Report refers to Contract City of Alameda and has improvements within unless said project is constructed, the responsible for Contracts B or C and would not after a notice to proceed for Contract A becomes responsible for the entire project. is broken into three a share of the total A, which effects the the City of Alameda; City would not be pay any local share; is issued, the City Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the City managed to separate itself financially from Contracts B & C cost overruns. The Public Works Director responded there is a not -to- exceed total for each of the Contracts; before a substantial change order is approved, it is reviewed by the Policy Advisory Committee, which represents all parties. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether approval of Contracts B & C, cost increases are subject to the City's veto. The Public Works Director stated there are maximum amounts above which costs must be approved. The City Manager stated the only way to approve additional project increases is by a unanimous vote of the Policy Committee; the City has effectively capped its exposure without further approval. Councilmember Kerr stated the original Environmental Impact Report Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 March 7, 2000 (EIR) for Oakland Airport expansion studied the Cross Airport Roadway and the effect on East End traffic of Alameda; the EIR stated the Cross Airport Roadway would increase the traffic in the East End of Alameda; subsequent amendments to the EIR pulled out said comments and have been silent on the effect of traffic in the East End; the EIR has not indicated the Cross Airport Roadway would relieve East End traffic; at best, the effect of Cross Airport Roadway on East End traffic is unknown. Councilmember DeWitt moved introduction of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. ( *00 -111) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,804,174.05. * ** Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the Meeting at 8:38 p.m. * ** REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (00 -112) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of a Planning Board decision to deny a Waiver of Ordinance No. 2814, Moratorium on Check Cashing Stores, for property located at 1363 -1365 Park Street. Appellant: R.M. Bonnifield for California Check Cashing Stores Incorporated; and (00 -112A) Resolution No. 13188, "Upholding Denial by the Planning Board of the City of Alameda of a Request for Waiver of Ordinance No. 2814, Moratorium on Check Cashing Stores, Requested by California Check Cashing Stores Incorporated at 1363 -1365 Park Street." Adopted. Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing. Mike Bonnifield, California Check Cashing, stated California Check Cashing is requesting exemption from Ordinance 2814, which is the moratorium on Check Cashing stores in the City of Alameda; California Check Cashing had an interest in opening a check cashing store in the City of Alameda, specifically at 1363 -65 Park Street; based upon said interest, California Check Cashing asked the City of Alameda whether a check cashing store would be permitted at the specific site; California Check Cashing was given oral okay that its intended use met the City's requirements; California Check Cashing went one step further and got a Zoning Compliance Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 March 7, 2000 Certificate which indicated that there were no other discretionary requirements; based upon those actions, California Check Cashing signed a lease with the Chinese Benevolent Association for rental space at 1363 -65 Park Street; thereafter, an emergency moratorium went into effect which was replaced by Ordinance No. 2814; California Check Cashing entered into a five -year lease with the Chinese Benevolent Association and commenced paying rent on November 1, 1999; the rent is $4,300 per month; a total of $21,500 has been paid to date and California Check Cashing is liable for approximately $258,000 over the five -year period; California Check Cashing has done nothing wrong in this instance and relied upon the City of Alameda in granting the Zoning Compliance Certificate before signing the lease; California Check Cashing is requesting exemption under [Ordinance No.] 2814; the payment of $21,500, without the ability to operate a business, and the possible liability of $258,000 is a hardship; the Staff Report indicates that, essentially, denial is warranted because of the possibility of a sublease; a sublease takes into consideration three things: 1) someone is interested in subleasing the property; 2) the approval of the landlord and 3) the approval of the City; the building in question and the lease base in question is designed for financial services, not for any other purpose; the financial industry is consolidating rather than expanding; banks are buying each other rather than opening new branches; the facility has no parking; it took 21�- to 3 -years for the Chinese Benevolent Association to rent the space to California Check Cashing; at the Planning Board Hearing, he was asked whether another use is possible, and responded anything can be run there, e.g. restaurant; however, the question is who is going to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to open a restaurant ?; the property is designed specifically for a financial institution, rather than another use; there is question about Chinese Benevolent Association's position on the matter, which is "pay your rent "; the Association refuses to give advisory opinions requested by Council; two people looked at renting the building; one party looked at the building and was not heard from again; a current City of Alameda tenant also looked at the building; however, no offer has been made; negotiations were offered and have not come forward; further stated photos of proposed upgrades to the building were submitted at the Planning Board meeting; California Check Cashing agreed to use two- thirds of the rental space and lease the rest as a retail facility; if California Check Cashing has paid $260,000 at the end of sixty months and has not been able to sublease the property, clearly a hardship has taken place; the rent which is paid to the Chinese Benevolent Association goes to its children programs; said programs were not funded during the time the property was vacant; in order to fund programs, the Chinese Benevolent Association requires California Check Casking to pay its rent. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 March 7, 2000 Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Mr. Bonnifield is aware that the City is going through an Economic Development Plan process. Mr. Bonnifield responded in the affirmative; stated part of the problem with subleasing the property is the appropriate use for the site is not known; in discussions with City staff, he was told appropriate uses for the property cannot be indicated; the Planning Board assumes the landlord will approve use of a piece of property designed for financial services for a new use which has not been determined. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether California Check Cashing has any businesses in the City of Alameda now, to which Mr. Bonnifield responded in the affirmative. In response to Mayor Appezzato's further inquiry regarding how many, Mr. Bonnifield stated one facility on Webster Street. Mayor Appezzato stated there are pros and cons on whether another check cashing business should be permitted in that spot [1363 -65] Park Street]; the community wants to review where the City should go, which is not meant to harm California Check Cashing. Councilmember Johnson inquired what efforts are being made to market the property. Mr. Bonnifield responded that there are three signs on the property which indicate it is for lease; California Check Cashing contacted all the people it does business with and none are interested in the space; the space is listed with a broker; the broker has indicated there is no interest from other brokers or anyone interested in leasing the property; only two businesses have expressed interest. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about the name of the broker, Mr. Bonnifield stated that he did not have the broker's name with him. Richard Neveln, Alameda, suggested Council grant the Appeal to California Check Cashing with a 5 -year limit; stated review of use could be completed after nine months. There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Kerr noted the Report from City Planner David Valeska to the Planning Board indicates the property owner, which is the Benevolent Association, has refused to take any position on the responsibility of the rent in writing. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 March 7, 2000 The Planning Director stated the last speaker [Mr. Neveln] discussed allowing use subject to a time period; however, the use is permitted as a matter of right and is currently being prohibited by a moratorium, rather than a use which is conditionally permitted; Council is considering a waiver which would allow a permitted use not subject to conditions of approval as the speaker suggested. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt stated the City is proceeding to come up with a resolution for these problems; the Visioning Process will provide a way to resolve the matter and keep similar problems from arising in the future; said Process should occur in the near future. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -113) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding between East Bay Municipal Utility District, Port of Oakland, and City of Alameda for the Construction of Naval Air Station Alameda Replacement Wastewater Interceptor System Project. Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt requested the Public Works Director to provide Council with a copy of a diagram depicting pipes [for the Project]. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether $2,557,000 is going to be provided from the City's sewer fund; stated the fund is enhanced by property owners in Alameda; the sewer tax is one of the biggest items on the tax bill; inquired whether delays, if any, are occurring in City sewer replacement. The Public Works Director stated the plan proposes no delays; most of the infiltration and inflow projects being completed by the City are secured through federal loans. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 March 7, 2000 (00 -114) Resolution No. 13189, "Urging All Alamedans to Participate in Census 2000." Adopted. Vice Mayor Daysog thanked City staff Carol Beaver and Ouida Cooper; stated the City is working with agencies, such as the College of Alameda, to ensure a complete count; federal allocations are based on the Census number; the census provides a snapshot of all the different people and languages which comprise Alameda and allows comparison against ten years ago versus 20 years ago; Alameda changed substantially in the 1990's alone; two Alameda neighborhoods were considered hard to enumerate; volunteers will assist with getting the word out to said neighborhoods; thanked Social Service Human Relations Board member Victoria Ryan for co- chairing the Complete Count Task Force. The Community Development Manager provided handouts; stated census data will be used in a number of ways, including recalculating formulas which bring federal funds into the City and County; the new demographics of the community should be a tremendous boost to economic development activities. Mayor Appezzato thanked Vice Mayor Daysog for bringing the matter to the public eye. Councilmember Johnson thanked the Vice Mayor; stated one use for census figures is to determine the amount of funding the City receives from the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the paratransit program; an accurate census figure is very important. Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (00 -115) Ordinance No. 2825. "Approving and Authorizing 1) an Agreement Between City of Alameda and the Port of Oakland Transferring Real Property and Other Consideration Between the Parties, and 2) a Related Limited Party Agreement Between the City of Alameda, the Port of Oakland, Bay Ship & Yacht Company, and Alameda Gateway Inc." Finally passed. Cris Kraft, Bay Ship & Yacht, stated Bay Ship & Yacht will be able to remain in Alameda and will give up the opportunity to bring large ships over 400 feet alongside; facilities will be improved for the mid -range market, e.g. ferries, tugs, barges, small cruise ships, government vessels, Coast Guard cutters; the City's support of Bay Ship was balanced and effective; thanked Mayor Appezzato and Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 10 March 7, 2000 City staff; further stated staff had unfailing patience, courtesy, and cooperation; the City's efforts were effective with the delicate matter and did not antagonize the Port of Oakland; personally thanked Deputy City Attorney David Brandt. Mayor Appezzato thanked Mr. Kraft and requested the City Manager to pass on Mr. Kraft's sentiments. Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the Ordinance. Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion. Mayor Appezzato stated there would be ceremonial signing on March 24 at 10:00 a.m. on the USS Potomac in the estuary. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA None. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (00 -116) Mayor Appezzato stated the Police Chief was on the radio discussing the gunlock program; the City is providing gunlocks to gun owners, including Police Officers; complimented the Police Chief and City Manager for taking the lead in the important program; urged residents who legally own guns to partake in the opportunity to get a gunlock. (00 -117) Mayor Appezzato stated a number of residents on Gibbons Drive raised the traffic and parking issue; requested the City Manager to meet with said residents to discuss the complexity of the corner shopping center and other pertinent issues. (00 -118) Mayor Appezzato stated that he sent a letter to Senator Boxer requesting that six projects be included in appropriations for federal funds: 1) Emergency Operations Center; 2) Carnegie building improvements; 3) public safety funding for a new Fire Station #3; 4) life safety and accessibility for the Alameda Point Gymnasium and swimming pool; 5) Alameda Point sports complex; and 6) transportation and community system preservation grant for smart transportation corridors in West Alameda; Senator Boxer asked for input; Senator Feinstein has also requested input. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 March 7, 2000 (00 -119) Mayor Appezzato announced that the Navy signed the Record of Decision for the disposal and reuse of the Naval Air Station; there are other issues to deal with; however, the City will move forward with seeking title to the Base. (00 -120) Councilmember Kerr wished everyone a happy St. Patrick's Day. (00 -121) Councilmember Johnson stated the 150th Anniversary for the State of California is approaching; Assembly Bill 638 proposes "Admission Day" [September 9, 2000] be declared a State holiday; requested a Resolution supporting the Bill be brought to Council. The City Manager suggested the City's Sesquincentenial Committee address the matter and make a recommendation to Council. Councilmember Johnson agreed with said recommendation. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 9:14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 12 March 7, 2000