2000-04-18 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2000- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Appezzato convened the Regular Meeting at 8:20 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
(00 -186) Mayor Appezzato announced that he called a Task Force
Meeting regarding anonymous graffiti and letters written related to
the Columbine High School shooting April 20, 1999; that he will
meet with the City Manager, Schools and the Police Department to
ensure concerns are addressed; hopefully, individuals who wrote the
graffiti and letters will be apprehended.
(00 -187) Announcement of Library's Community Needs Assessment
Workshop.
Karen Butter, Member, Library Board and Library Needs Assessment
Steering Committee, announced that there will be two Community
Needs Assessment Workshops in May to listen to the Community on how
the library can contribute to civic goals; fifty citizens will
attend each meeting; broad and diverse representation is being
sought; the Meetings will be on Thursday, May 18 and Monday, May
22.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Appezzato announced the recommendation to authorize the City
Manager to submit an application and execute CalWORKS contract
Employment Grant [paragraph no. 00 -1901 and the recommendation to
approve proceeding with the Structural Stabilization, Restoration
and Prevention of Deterioration Option of the Carnegie Building
[paragraph no. 00 -1941 were removed from the Consent Calender for
discussion
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calender.
Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
April 18, 2000
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
( *00 -189) Minutes of the the Special Joint City Council and Alameda
Board of Education Meeting held on March 28, 2000, the Special and
Regular City Council Meetings held on April 4, 2000, and the
Special Joint City Council and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting held on April 5, 2000. Approved.
(00 -190) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to submit an
Application and execute a Contract for CalWORKS "Neighborhood
Model" Employment Grant.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, Member, Public Transit Committee and West
Oakland Community Advisory Board, stated that in Oakland, there is
a tremendous need to employ people through CalWORKS; approximately
$240,000 of Oakland's grant is spent to enhance Ac Transit's late
night and overnight transit service; funding transit is important
to make employment a reality for people participating in the
CalWORKS program; the City of Alameda should modify its program
through CalWORKS to include public transit money; transportation to
1:00 a.m. jobs makes the training a reality.
Councilmember DeWitt stated the City's money is used to operate a
One -Stop Career Center at the College of Alameda; stated there is
not enough money to assist with transportation.
The Community Development Manager stated the CalWORKS grant Mr.
Neveln is addressing is a special grant through the Alameda County
Social Services Agency; CalWORKS typically has a transportation
component; staff anticipates said funding will continue; staff has
been working with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission on its
welfare -to -work transportation funding program; there will be a
separate Request for Proposal issued within the next several
months; the matter will be reviewed to determine whether an
application for additional funding should be submitted.
Councilmember Johnson stated the matter has come before the Public
Transit Committee; Oakland has had a substantial amount of funding
which has been used to provide transportation from residential
areas to areas where there are jobs; when applying for programs,
the City should keep in mind the need for expanded transit service.
The Community Development Manager stated the City of Oakland is
under a separate funding source for its CalWORKS money; staff
recognizes the importance of transportation to jobs.
Councilmember Johnson stated Oakland established a route to the
Oakland Airport; the City of Alameda does not have bus service to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
April 18, 2000
the Oakland Airport; jobs [at the Airport] would be good for
Alameda residents.
Mayor Appezzato stated a number of local businesses have committed
to participate if the program is funded.
Councilmember Kerr stated the Alameda Housing Authority has a very
successful welfare -to -work program, which has a very low dropout
rate.
Councilmember DeWitt moved approval of staff recommendation.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
* **
Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 8:33 p.m.
* **
( *00 -191) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$319,194 to McGuire and Hester for Main Street Ferry Terminal
Parking Lot Expansion Project, No. P.W. 09- 99 -23. Accepted.
( *00 -192) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Calling for Bids for Harbor Bay Parkway Extension Phase 4
and Landscape Improvements Phases 3 and 4, No. P.W. 07- 99 -19.
Accepted.
( *00 -193) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Calling for Bids for Bay Farm Island Dike Repair Phase 2,
No. P.W. 05- 99 -16. Accepted.
(00 -194) Recommendation to approve proceeding with the Structural
Stabilization, Restoration and Prevention of Deterioration Option
of the Carnegie Building, and to allocate $160,000 in Escalated
Certificates of Participation (COP) Money for the Carnegie Library
Improvement Project, No. P.W. 08- 99 -22.
Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated that he wonders why the total cost to
completely renovate the Carnegie Library comes to more than $16
Million when a brand new, state -of- the -art library would cost only
$20 Million, according to Library 2000 proponents; inquired whether
the Public Works Director's calculations are incorrect or whether
Library 2000 is deliberately low- balling the numbers for its
library; stated the cost for renovating and expanding the Carnegie
in 1995 was about $6.6 Million, which would work out to about $10
Million today; prior to the [1998] Measure A vote, the City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
April 18, 2000
indicated Alameda Power & Telecom's Cable TV proposal would only
cost $7.9 Million; however, the City had to float $20.5 Million
worth of bonds; that he wonders whether the City low -balls cost
estimates for the projects it likes and high -balls estimates for
the projects it does not like; last August, the Public Works
Director recommended that the City sell 10.2 acres of land at the
Harbor Bay Business Park to Harbor Bay Associates for $268,000 an
acre, and eight months later recommended that the City purchase 2
acres from Harbor Bay Associates for $480,000 an acre; perhaps
Harbor Bay Associates will be the General Contractor on the
Carnegie renovation, which is what increased costs; stated the City
should straighten out the matter.
Dave Plummer, Alameda, stated City Hall cost around $7.5 Million to
seismically strengthen and completely renovate; for the Carnegie
Building, which is less than half the size of City Hall, to cost
twice the amount to renovate is hard to believe; suggested a new,
outside estimate be ordered or drawings be finished, the project be
put out to bid and the City Hall contractor be invited to bid;
stated it will take winning State bond money and passing a City-
wide bond issue to get an improved library for Alameda; the
Carnegie Library, in its present state and size, is inadequate;
however, if the Carnegie Library building is renovated and expanded
on its City -owned children's library land, Alameda could have a
wonderful library of around 35,000 square feet, for half the cost
of a Linoaks Library; people feel the temporary library in the
[Historic Alameda] High School, which has two stories totaling
18,000 square feet, is working out; an expanded Carnegie Library on
City -owned land could allow 35,000 square feet of well - designed
library; unlike Alameda, the City of Berkeley just passed a large
bond issue to renovate and expand its 1931 central library; for the
City of Alameda to have an improved state -of- the -art library,
Alameda is going to need to demonstrate to the State and the
Alameda voters that it is acting most prudently by utilizing and
working with what it has; destroying housing at the Linoaks and
discouraging the rehabilitation and retention of the Carnegie
Library will not win money and /or votes.
Mayor Appezzato stated people against the Bond Measure a couple of
years ago opposed new taxes, not the library; no matter what is
done, renovation of the Carnegie or construction at the Linoaks,
the same people are going to say no more taxes; inquired whether
voters would approve a bond measure for the Carnegie.
Mr. Plummer responded the less costly request will get the votes.
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether it is okay to raise taxes for the
Carnegie, but not to raise taxes for the Linoaks.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
April 18, 2000
Mr. Plummer responded if it [Carnegie project] is a more moderate
project.
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether people would not have launched a
"no new taxes" campaign if the project was for the Carnegie.
Mr. Plummer responded the project would have had a much better
chance and probably would have passed; Alameda should have an
improved library that is within its means; it [Carnegie project]
would stand a better chance of receiving State funding; of the
cities which requested funding, the record shows lesser requested
amounts [of funding] were granted.
Mayor Appezzato stated if the City receives State funding, the
matter will have to go to the voters whether the library is at the
Linoaks or Carnegie.
Mr. Plummer stated there is such a tremendous difference in money
that the City cannot go to the State without choosing which site
will be used.
Mayor Appezzato agreed.
Councilmember Kerr stated when the matter was before the voters [in
1996], she read the Berryman and Henigar Engineering Report which
listed proposed assessments; there was great tax inequity;
commercial properties were let off lightly; huge apartment
buildings, like the Alameda Hotel, were in a very low tax bracket
due to commercial zoning, while very small apartment houses were to
pay far more than the entire Alameda Hotel; there was such great
disparity that Council delayed the vote for two weeks upon her
request; everybody was sure the Measure would pass and would not
change the assessment method except for buildings with four units
and under; a great movement started because the assessment
procedure was unfair; whatever goes to the voters should not have
the same flaw.
Mayor Appezzato stated rental property owners thought the
assessment was not fair; however, single- family homeowners were to
pay the same amount as rental properties per unit; families use the
library; the campaign [against the Measure] was no new taxes; the
majority of people in Alameda are renters; that he supports a new
library; if the City gets 650 of the funding to build a new library
and renovate those which exist, the remaining 35% will have to be
approved by the voters of Alameda; 740 of Alameda voters supported
the State bond initiative [March 2000 Election].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
April 18, 2000
Councilmember Johnson requested the Public Works Director to
clarify the amounts for each construction phase.
The City Manager stated the staff report includes costs to make
additional parts of the Library available for public use at
different levels; the summary shows four phases; if Council were to
authorize Phase 4, the total estimated cost would be $5.5 Million.
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the complete restoration estimate
is $5.5 Million, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated according to the Berryman and Henigar
Report, the total cost for design and renovation, with all the
bells and whistles, was $3.5 Million; four years later, the cost
has risen to over $5 Million; inquired whether said increase is due
to inflation.
The Public Works Director stated that he was not familiar with the
previous study's cost estimates; his staff has not reviewed the
study; based on current good engineering judgement, the estimate is
$5.5 Million.
The City Manager stated the same level of detail was not provided
previously; part of the problem is that the City did not go into
the engineering detail to develop accurate cost figures; it is
probably a combination of cost escalation over the past four years,
and the fact that the City did not provide numbers in specific
details; there is no record which explains why said detail was not
provided.
Councilmember Kerr stated the matter that went to the voters listed
amount very specifically; further stated Capital Improvement
Projects (CIPs) were approved for renovation of the Carnegie in
December of 1996; inquired whether the philosophy on CIPs is first
come first serve.
The City Manager stated the Public Works Director was charged with
creating logic to the CIP program, to stretch it globally, enlarge
it, and think more strategically looking to the future; the Public
Works Director put together a 5 -year CIP Plan, which will be
expanded to 10- years; staff is trying to create some level of
understandability and present priorities to the City Council that
have been raised in the community through Boards and Commissions.
The Public Works Director stated there was no prioritization of
CIPs before he began working at the City; he developed a
prioritized list; there is a monthly status report of CIPs; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
April 18, 2000
Carnegie Library project has been included in said report; the
project has remained mostly on schedule; there have been delays due
to the fact that there was a lapse in the grant, while the City
hired a new Chief Building Official; his staff checked with the
Office of Emergency Services (OES) to ensure that the grant would
be reactivated.
Councilmember Kerr stated the Main Library does not have a place to
go; the rent at the [Historic Alameda] High School is about to rise
sharply; the City is depending upon a favorable vote in November
and acquisition of Proposition 14 [March 2000 Election] funds; the
ability to use the Carnegie as a library has been eliminated unless
said matter is also placed on the ballot; the City is up a creek
unless [a Bond Measure for] the Linoaks passes in November and the
City receives Proposition 14 funds.
Councilmember Johnson stated the matter before Council is
consideration of Phase 1, which is structural stabilization,
restoration and prevention of deterioration of the Carnegie; most
residents probably do not want to see further deterioration of the
Carnegie building.
Councilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion.
Mayor Appezzato stated for $500,000 more, the first floor of the
building could be used; inquired whether the City should decide
what will be done with the Carnegie before spending the additional
$500,000.
The Public Works Director stated the funds available for CIPs are
very limited; additional funding for Phase 2 is not available.
The City Manager stated Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning
system for Mastick Senior Center, which is a substantial project,
is the number one [CIP] recommendation to the Council [for FY 2000-
01] .
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether first floor occupancy would cost
only an additional $500,000 if funds become available.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired why the staff report has $3,289,160
listed under Phase 2.
Councilmember Johnson responded that Phase 2 includes the amount
for Phase 1 and Phase 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
April 18, 2000
Councilmember Johnson stated the motion could include the
preference to open up the Carnegie building and make it useable;
making the Carnegie available is a priority of residents.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether making complete restoration an
unfunded CIP addresses Councilmember Johnson's request.
The City Manager responded that staff can consider the matter when
preparing the recommendation and presenting the CIP list to
Council.
The Public Works Director stated the staff report indicates that
the City will look for grants from the Carnegie foundation as well
as from the State and federal government.
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether OES indicated it may come up with
additional funds.
The Public Works Director responded that OES might provide for
escalated monies; as the City is escalating the Certificates of
Participation, the City needs to apply for said funding; if the
funding is available, OES will provide it to the City.
Vice Mayor Daysog thanked the Public Works Director for his effort.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 9:04 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 9:17 p.m.
(00 -195) Resolution No. 13207, "Appreciation to the Volunteers for
the City of Alameda." Adopted.
(00 -196) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 2,336,388.69.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(00 -197) Public Hearing to consider Ordinance No. 2829, "Urgency
Ordinance Placing a Moratorium on Certain Permitted and
Conditionally Permitted Uses in C -2 and C -M Zoning Districts within
the Park Street and Webster Street Business Areas." Adopted.
The Economic Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Appezzato opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
April 18, 2000
Proponents:
Jim Sweeney, Alameda;
Michael Dugan, Elders Inn;
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBR);
Timmie Chesler, Alameda.
Opponents:
Keith Nealy, Alameda;
Sam Koka, Alameda;
Linda Bradford;
Carl Searway, Alameda;
Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda;
Moti Koka, Alameda;
Bill Smith, Alameda.
Requesting exemption:
Elbin Chiu, Bay View Investment Group, Inc.;
Tony Chiu, Alameda;
Nelson Ng, Alameda;
Wendy Yang, Alameda;
Alice Teo, Alameda;
Sam Chan, Alameda;
Chelito Mercado, Alameda;
Amy Chiu, Alameda;
Dennis Hut, Alameda;
Rena Rickies, Representing John Ng;
Kimberley Wong, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Following Nelson Ng's comments, Vice Mayor Daysog requested the
City Attorney to clarify whether it is technically and legally
feasible to allow exemption as requested.
The City Attorney responded Section 15 of the Ordinance provides a
procedure for requesting exemption.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Council could provide an
exemption tonight.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Council
must apply the moratorium equally throughout all uses; if Council
wants to exempt a specific business from the moratorium, the
procedures set forth in Section 15 must be followed.
Councilmember DeWitt stated the particular proposal [Bay View
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
April 18, 2000
Investment Group, Inc.] should not be subject to the moratorium;
inquired whether it is possible to not include the proposal in the
moratorium.
The City Attorney stated she could ask questions and there could be
an evidentiary hearing to establish a factual basis to
differentiate the particular project from others; inquired whether
the project has been deemed complete.
The Development Review Manager stated the application has been
processed and has gone to the Planning Board.
The City Attorney stated that [being deemed completed] could be
established as a criteria [for exemption].
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Council could decide that if it
[Bay View Investment Group, Inc. project] is in the pipeline, it
could be exempt and anything not in the pipeline could come under
the moratorium, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Following Rob Ratto's testimony, Councilmember DeWitt inquired
whether churches could be added on later if left out tonight.
The City Attorney stated an additional urgency ordinance could be
adopted to have a separate moratorium on churches; however, in 45
days Council will consider continuing the urgency ordinance before
Council tonight.
Following Linda Bradford's comments, Vice Mayor Daysog inquired
whether the liquor store issue was resolved.
The Development Review Manager stated liquor stores are to be
precluded; the Business Associations would like liquor stores
deleted [from Conditionally Permitted Uses].
The City Attorney stated that when Council makes a motion, she
would suggest: 1) under Section 8, Conditionally Permitted Uses,
Item No. 7 [Liquor Stores], be deleted, which was the request from
the Business Associations; and 2) to accommodate the
Wienerschnitzel [Bay View Investment Group, Inc. Project], there
can be an additional section added to the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether Item No. 3 [Liquor Stores] under
Section 6 of the Ordinance should be deleted as well, to which the
City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Following Marilyn Schumacher, Mayor Appezzato stated the Christian
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
April 18, 2000
Science Reading Room would be considered retail.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Christian Science Reading
Room would fall under Item No. 6 [in Section 5 of the Ordinance]
bookstores and rental libraries.
The Planning Director stated there is a section in the [Alameda
Municipal] Code which states: "or similar uses "; the Christian
Science Reading Room functions like a bookstore or rental- library-
type of retail activity, as opposed to a church with a traditional
congregational space; therefore, the interpretation that the
Reading Room would be treated as retail space; the difficulty is
that the moratorium is intended to be drawn very narrowly and does
not provide the flexibility which is otherwise provided to the
Planning Director to identify other uses of a similar character;
items on the list are the only permitted businesses.
Mayor Appezzato inquired how the Planning Director can be provided
said option to keep the City from being too onerous.
The Planning Director stated that the wording could be; however,
the ordinance was drafted to be narrow; staff could look at wording
which can be written in a way clear enough to include the Christian
Science Reading Room relocating within the commercial area.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired how churches were added because [Alameda
Municipal Code] Section 30 -4.9 does not include churches under uses
permitted or uses requiring a use permit.
The Planning Director stated the Alameda Zoning Ordinance is
prymidal; one of the first provisions in the C -2 District is all
uses permitted in C -1; churches are permitted in C -1 and are
carried forward by reference.
Councilmember DeWitt stated that he would support better wording
for the exclusion of churches.
Following Bill Smith, the last public speaker, Councilmember
Johnson stated there are visioning processes going on for downtown
districts; when the vision process is in place, the City will have
something to work with; as a matter of equity, it is fair to let
the Wienerschnitzel process go forward; if the Council votes in
favor of said matter, the project will not be approved tonight, it
will be allowed to go through the Appeal process which began before
the moratorium; the timeframe [of the moratorium] can be further
discussed; the moratorium should not be in place for 45 days and an
additional 22 months; the process should be as quick as possible;
that her motion would include wording to make an allowance for the
Christian Science Reading Room.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
April 18, 2000
Councilmember Johnson inquired whether language should be provided
for the record.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the action
is first- and second - reading and takes effect in thirty days.
Councilmember Kerr suggested Item Number 6 [in Section 5 of the
Ordinance] be changed to read: "Bookstores, rental libraries and
reading rooms;" staff indicated said language would allow the
Christian Science Reading Room to relocate.
Councilmember Johnson moved amendment and adoption of the Ordinance
as follows: 1) Section 12, add: "Any business that has requested a
use permit, has been deemed complete, has been heard by the
Planning Board and has appealed to the City Council is declared as
exempt from this Ordinance "; 2) Item Number 6, Section 5, Permitted
Uses, add: "and non - denominational reading rooms."
Councilmember Kerr stated the reading room is denominational.
The City Attorney stated the motion could be revised by adding
"reading rooms" [to Item Number 6, Section 51.
Councilmember Johnson agreed to amend her motion.
Mayor Appezzato stated the City has to be fair and equitable to
business owners; that he is concerned about property owners; the
City has to be judicious when development is not permitted.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the language was revised to
"Bookstores, rental libraries, and reading rooms."
Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated Councilmember Johnson's motion should be
amended to remove Item Number 3 [Liquor Stores] of Section 6 of the
Ordinance, and Item Number 7 [Liquor Stores] of Section 8 of the
Ordinance.
Councilmember Johnson agreed to amend her motion.
Councilmember Johnson requested staff to discuss the timeframe.
The City Manager stated staff will return to the City Council
within 45 days with a report identifying a timeline; Council will
have an opportunity to address the matter prior to extension of the
moratorium.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
April 18, 2000
Mayor Appezzato urged business and property owners to continue to
participate in the process and look into joining the business
associations; stated a letter from the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) supports the Wienerschnitzel project
application; the applicant should work closely with WABA to ensure
it continues to support the project; it behooves the business
associations to assist the Planning Board and City Council,
however, input should be provided at the beginning of the process
to ensure huge amounts of money are not spent developing [projects]
that everybody wants thrown out when the matter is before Council;
it [project's merit] should be addressed long before it is before
Council; the community needs to be more definitive on making
decisions that are fair and equitable to everyone; there are
property rights.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated hopefully the revolving
door of liquor stores on Webster Street will be stopped.
Councilmember DeWitt stated property and business owners should be
informed of rules early to ensure money is not spent on blueprints
and soil samples only for the project to be turned down; Webster
Street has different problems than Park Street; the moratorium
began because of the cigarette and check cashing stores; requests
have been denied on Webster Street because there are many of the
same types of businesses; Webster Street has bars, liquor stores,
and automobile shops; Neptune Plaza started the problem; three
businesses, which already existed, were permitted; there was
already a laundromat, pizza parlor and video store; the request for
the Webster Square Walgreens was permitted when there were two
drugstores down the street; there was a request for an auto repair
shop; there are seven auto repair shops and part stores in the
area; there is a fast food request; there are many fast food stores
on Webster Street; the problem with Webster Street is redundancy;
the upcoming Appeal [Wienerschnitzel] might not be considered fast
food.
Mayor Appezzato stated there should be competition; if Alameda
citizens do not shop at a store, it will go out of business;
businesses exist to serve the community; those doing a good job
will stay in business; those not serving the public well should not
have the luxury of the City turning down similar businesses on the
same street; the City should not create vacant lots all over the
community because people do not like the types of proposed
businesses.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
April 18, 2000
vote - 5.
(00 -198) Recommendation to adopt FY 2000 -01 through FY 2004 -05
Five Year Strategic Plan; FY 2000 -01 Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Action Plan; Amendment No. 2 to FY 1999 -00 Community
Development Block Grant Action Plan; and authorize execution of
Related Documents, Modifications and Agreements; and
(00 -198A) Recommendation to approve the Community Development Block
Grant FY 2000 -01 Public Service Funding Allocations.
Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the Federal Hatch Act restricts the
political activities of organizations receiving CDBG funds;
organizations which receive taxpayer funds, including the City
Council, should not try to affect the vote of the electorate with
sponsorship of funds; that he wrote a letter to the Inspector
General of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and
the Regional Administrator for Community Planning & Development
funds, which states: "As you know, Congress passed the Hatch Act
restrictions on organizations receiving public funds so that
taxpayers agreeing or disagreeing with one side of a political
measure before the electorate would not be funding political
activity on the other side of the measure. A week and a half ago,
I called Mr. Art Agnos, HUD Regional Administrator, and discussed
an Alameda Organization which received $26,186 in HUD CDBG funds
last year and subsequently took an active role in opposing two
measures on the March 7, 2000 Ballot. Mr. Agnos concurred with my
opinion concerning this organization's eligibility to receive
federal funds and recommended I send this complaint and
substantiating documents to Mr. Sachs and the Regional Inspector
General. While such activity should make the organization
ineligible to receive CDBG funding, the Alameda City Council will
vote on Tuesday, April 18, 2000 to award to organization $25,893 in
CDBG funds for the 2000 -01 fiscal year. I request that you
investigate this matter and rule the Alameda Multi - Cultural Center
(AMCC) ineligible to receive federal funds due to numerous
violations of the Hatch Act. To receive CDBG funds, the AMCC
signed an agreement with the City of Alameda which explains that
non - profit organizations financed in whole or in part by federal
loans or grants may not use official authority or influence for the
purpose of interfering with or affecting the results of an
election. Subsequently, the AMCC newsletter Vol. II, #1, January
2000, contained a full -page message dominated by a "No on Knight
Proposition 22" graphic opposing Proposition 22 on the March
ballot. The organization also put up several signs opposing
Proposition 22 at its facility at 842 Central Avenue, Alameda. The
AMCC newsletter Vol. II, #3, March 2000, also contained a full -page
message opposing Proposition 21 on the March ballot. These
political messages were intentional violations as the March message
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
April 18, 2000
from Mariano Juaco, AMCC Director, explained: `At our recent board
of directors meeting, the board had discussed whether to speak out
for or against certain propositions. Most agreed that as long as
the propositions affected or challenged our mission statement as a
center, we felt that it was our obligation to do so.' By doing so,
the organization made itself ineligible for CDBG funds as well as
for IRS 501(c)3 non - profit status." [Mr. Grzanka submitted a copy
of his complaint and substantiating documentation for distribution
to the City Council.]
Irene Arroyo, BANANAS, thanked the Mayor and City Councilmembers
for supporting child care; stated subsidized child care is in short
supply in the City of Alameda; the City of Alameda currently has
two centers: Woodstock Child Care Development Center which has 216
subsidized spaces and over 100 people on the waiting list, and
Alameda College has 105 subsidized spaces with a very long waiting
list; welfare reform will effect low- and moderate - income working
families; lack of spaces will make it difficult for families to
continue working and some will have to consider returning to
welfare; BANANAS has been administering the Alameda Child Care
Vendor Program with CDBG funds since 1985 and has serviced over 500
children; the service is cost effective; the program assists low -
income working families to become stable and self - efficient by
providing $150 per month per child for 9 months; urged continued
funding.
Allan Shore, Xanthos, stated that he supports the proposal for
centrally located child care programs; surveys have established the
need for child care facilities in the central part of Alameda; it
is unfortunate that CDBG funding could continue to decrease while
other funding increases.
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there are no new programs.
The Community Development Manager responded in the affirmative;
stated public service programs are a portion of the annual
allocation; other projects are new, but do not fall within the
public services cap.
Mayor Appezzato inquired the amount of funding which was cut by the
federal government, to which the Community Development Manager
responded $40,000 over two years.
In response to Mayor Appezzato's inquiry whether cuts were applied
across the board, the Community Development Manager stated
essentially, however, it is a little more complex.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether East Bay Asian Local
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
April 18, 2000
Development Corporation's [EBALDC's] funding is contingent upon it
obtaining a use permit.
The Community Development Manager responded the Multi - Cultural
Center needs to get a use permit to remain in its current location;
staff's recommendation is to support funding related to apportion
of rent, therefore, it [Use Permit] would be a condition; EBALDC
has been the fiscal and administrative agent for the Multi - Cultural
Center as it was working through the process of becoming a non-
profit; the Multi - Cultural Center has received its non - profit
status and 501(c)3; therefore, a contract with EBALDC is not
recommended, rather a direct contract with the Multi - Cultural
Center is recommended once it has met the fiscal and administrative
management requirements.
Councilmember Kerr stated Council receives petitions from people
who have been sold by the EBALDC performa on East Housing; citizens
are being provided inaccurate information; that she has met with
people from the group [EBALDC] and explained that things must be
brought up to civilian code; EBALDC either does not want to hear or
tells people something which is not true; hundreds of people
believe that something fiscally impossible is possible.
Mariano Jauco, Director, Alameda Multi - Cultural Community Center,
stated the Multi - Cultural Center is a young organization formed to
promote diversity; the Center spoke out on propositions; City
staff member Kathy Quick informed him of the Hatch Act; he removed
signs and understands the Center cannot take positions on
propositions; it will not happen in the future; the Center just
received its 501 (c) 3 status March 30, can stand alone as a non-
profit organization, and will be separating from EBALDC; the Center
will separate as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the Multi - Cultural Center has
received positive response from its outreach to National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Filipino
American Community Services Agency (FACSA) and United Philippians
of America (UPA).
Mr. Jauco responded in the affirmative; stated the NAACP is
interested in holding meetings at the Center; the number of
organizations using the facility is growing; the facility is being
provided free of charge to community -based organizations; e.g.,
AUSD has used the facility for training, and a Welfare Reform
Taskforce has been holding meetings at the Center; the Multi -
Cultural Center's primary concern is outreach to undeserved within
community.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
April 18, 2000
In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding sewing
classes, Mr. Jauco stated the Central American Refuge Committee has
been conducting sewing classes since the Center opened; there are 4
or 5 sowing machines; clothes and materials made are sold to fund
the program; the group focuses on latino community refuges.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 11:11 p.m. and reconvened the
Meeting at 11:25 p.m.
(00 -199) Response to Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Regional Housing Needs Determination 1999 -2006 and Request to
Appropriate $95,000 for Housing Element Update.
The Development Review Manager gave a presentation; stated the
regional housing needs determination process is a State mandate;
according to ABAG, Alameda's anticipated growth is 1,559 units for
the period January 1, 1999 through July 30, 2006; the units must be
planned for during said time, not constructed; housing programs and
development potential throughout the City and Alameda Point were
reviewed to determine whether 1,559 could be reached; the adopted
Housing Element and General Plan were reviewed; units which were
anticipated in both [Housing Element and General Plan] have not
been achieved; table C reflects estimated potential which may be
achieved at Alameda Point and the Northern Waterfront; said
projects are speculative because they require legislative actions
by the City; the staff recommendation states 1,559 units could be
achieved at sometime, however, constraints, including legislative
actions, demonstrate that the City cannot reach numbers within the
seven - and -a- half -year time period allocated; the three major
constraints are: legislative requirements, Base transfer and
cleanup, and traffic constraints; staff evaluated the number of
units in each income category provided by ABAG and cannot achieve
amounts; current funding levels and anticipated growth in funding
levels, would allow staff to achieve the [required] units in the
very low- income category, but the amount in the low- to moderate -
income categories cannot be achieved; staff is recommending that
Council appropriate $95,000, provided by the State, for the purpose
of preparation of the Housing Element.
Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the City can take credit for the
Bruzzone project, to which the Development Review Manager responded
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
April 18, 2000
in the affirmative.
Mayor Appezzato stated Coast Guard Housing units are owned by the
Navy; requested staff to review whether said units could be counted
[toward meeting ABAG requirements] when the City takes control
[receives ownership].
The Planning Director responded staff would review the matter.
Mayor Appezzato stated the deadline to respond is April 30; at the
request of ABAG, the legislature has been asked to extend the
timeframe to the end of the year; a new procedure for counting jobs
and homes could be established; the City of Alameda's submittal
could change substantially.
The Development Review Manager stated if ABAG reallocates the
number of units and changes its formula, State law requires all
jurisdictions be provided 90 days to respond.
Councilmember Kerr stated infill units are listed at 26 per year;
the City has never achieved close to said amount; inquired whether
said figure could be added to the "doubtful of ability to achieve"
list.
The Development Review Manager stated staff lowered said figure
down to ten per year.
Councilmember Kerr stated there have not been ten per year;
Community Development has offered incentives, however, the City has
only achieved three per year.
The City Manager stated the three units on Santa Clara Avenue are
an example of filling in a vacant neighborhood lot.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the staff report indicates there are 131
moderate - income units which could be achieved; requested said
number be clarified.
The Development Review Manager stated the staff report is
addressing the allocations by income category; the Housing
Development Division provided projections based on current
programs.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether said number is reflected on
Table A, B or C attached to the staff report.
The Development Review Manager stated Tables A, B, and C reflect
estimates from the Housing Element, the General Plan and
transitioning [northern] waterfront; however, the numbers mentioned
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
April 18, 2000
in the staff report were reached in the abstract using current
programs available.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated Table A reflects Housing Element figures,
including four different sites which should accommodate 138
moderate - income homes; if amounts for moderate - income housing in
Tables B and C are added, it equals about 350 units; inquired how
said number relates to the projection of 131 moderate - income homes
listed in the staff report.
The Development Review Manager stated Tables A and B are
projections in the Housing Element and General Plan; said
projections are discounted in footnotes; the City has not been
achieving said numbers; therefore, the totals do not match
projections in the staff report; 131 is a more reasonable number
based on available programs.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the City could reach the goal of
350 moderate - income homes if programs were available.
The Development Review Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
funding sources are being cited as one of the constraints which is
keeping the City from achieving the number of units it is supposed
to achieve.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated moderate - income homes in Alameda range
from $60,000 to $80,000 for a family of four; legislative changes
are identified as a constraint; inquired what legislative changes
are required.
The Development Review Manager responded in order to achieve
additional housing units at the Base and [Northern] Waterfront
area, the City has to go through General Plan Amendments, Specific
Plans, and rezoning; said legislative processes have not been
completed and are subject to referendum.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether any changes to Measure A [1973]
are implied, to which the Development Review Manager responded in
the negative.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether ABAG has been informed that
tideland trust land is not available for housing.
The Planning Director stated the allocation provided by ABAG is not
based on examination of local land use, it is based on projections
and forecasting of jobs and population growth, and allocation of a
proportionate share; the numbers are not based on reviewing empty
land and determining whether housing can be placed on said land; a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
April 18, 2000
formula has been provided to Council as an attachment to the staff
report.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the reduction of the allocation of
low- and moderate - income units is disturbing and may squeeze out
some businesses; working class units are needed, which could be
provided by East Housing; market -rate housing will add to
congestion; more housing for people working in Alameda, e.g.,
teachers, will satisfy housing advocates and reduce traffic.
Allan Shore, Alameda, stated using traffic issues as a reason the
City is not able to deal with housing issues is not a good message;
private property rights impact issues around housing, not traffic
and transportation; the transit problem in Alameda can be fixed;
urged Council to put forth the message that something is being done
about transit, rather than use it as an excuse for housing problems
not being solved.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the City of Alameda is doing okay in
meeting ABAG's goals; Alameda can meet the very low- income goal;
the problem is in the moderate - income range; ABAG states Alameda
should come up with 437 units, while the City thinks it could only
come up with 131 units; there is no financing available; ABAG
should assist with finding financing to meet said goal; land
dedicated for housing would allow Alameda to produce 320 units for
moderate - income families; however, the City cannot reach said goal
due to lack of financing; the City should view meeting the goal as
a challenge; the moderate - income housing goal of 320 in areas
throughout Alameda could be met without keeping East Housing; the
City Manager should emphasize that financing is preventing the City
from assisting moderate - income families, and ensure that the City
is not opening itself up for ABAG to challenge Measure A [1973]
Charter Amendment.
Councilmember Kerr moved that the meeting be continued past 12:00
midnight.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by consensus.
Councilmember Kerr stated the City is surviving the Clayton Guyton
lawsuit and should not make promises of housing which cannot be
built; to meet the court - ordered 34 -35 units the City had to build,
affordable housing money was thrown out the window; 4- plexes were
rehabilitated at between $250,000 to $350,000 per unit; staff
should ensure restraints are documented and understood by ABAG;
Council receives a stack of petitions each day on East Housing;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 0
April 18, 2000
there is a proposal to purchase land, which is worth between $50-
and $60 Million, for $4.5 Million; said money would be taken from
the people of Alameda; the East Housing share of infrastructure is
approximately $12.5 Million; when the property comes into civilian
hands, civilian codes must be met below the ground; East Bay
Municipal Utility District will not take custody of the Navy water
mains; there would be no running water; an agreement with the
Homeless Collaborative was signed which involves sending a great
amount of tax increment to the Collaborative; said agreement cannot
be met unless East Housing is redeveloped to produce the tax
increment; the City cannot withdraw from the Agreement
unilaterally; retaining East Housing does not pencil out; there is
no way that units could be sold or rented for prices listed in the
proforma; people are being fed smoke; the proposal is not based on
solid financial legs.
Councilmember DeWitt moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(00 -200) Ordinance No. 2830, "Reclassifying and Rezoning Property
at 2415 and 2455 Mariner Square Drive from M -2 General
Industrial /Manufacturing Zoning District to M -2 /PD General
Industrial /Manufacturing with a PD Planned Development Combining
Zoning District." Finally passed; and
(00 -200A) Resolution No
Modifying Planning Board
Use Permit UP 99 -27 and
Living Facility, a Dry
with Piers at Mariner S
John Beery Jr. /Mariner S
13208, "Revising Resolution No. 13196
Approval of Planned Development PD 99 -04,
Design Review, DR -99 -74 for an Assisted
Boat Storage Building and Floating Docks
quare, for Aegis Assisted Living and for
quare." Adopted.
Councilmember DeWitt moved final passage of Ordinance and adoption
of the Resolution.
Councilmember Johnson seconded
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
the motion, which carried by
(00 -201) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated Ac Transit will hold a
Public Hearing on proposed service changes; line 50 will be
extended up to the Chabot Observatory and past the Ferry Terminal
to the USS Hornet; expanded service will assist with development at
Alameda Point; urged Councilmembers DeWitt and Johnson to attend
the Public Hearing and extend the City's gratitude and support of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
April 18, 2000
AC Transits's proposed action.
(00 -202) Dan Reidy, Attorney representing Harbor Bay Business
Park, submitted a letter; stated a new company, Covance Research
Products, Inc., would like to locate to the Harbor Bay Business
Park; the company does research, which is a permitted use; a Final
Development Plan and Design Review application have been submitted;
medical devises are tested using some animals, including pigs; the
Alameda Municipal Code prohibits more than one pig per acre and
requires pigs be 300 feet away from any other structure; requested
the matter be placed on an agenda for Council's consideration.
(00 -203) Bill Smith, Alameda, commented on housing issues.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:09 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 22
April 18, 2000