Loading...
2000-10-03 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY - - OCTOBER 3, 2000 - - 7:30 P.M. Vice Mayor Daysog convened the Regular Meeting at 7:56 p.m. Commissioner Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance. Reverend David Borglum, Home of Truth Spiritual Center, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Kerr - 4. Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1. AGENDA CHANGES None. PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS (00 -542) Vice Mayor Daysog announced that Mayor Appezzato was in Washington D.C. at the behest of Congresswoman Barbara Lee to meet with her office and the U.S. Navy to discuss outstanding issues related to Alameda Power & Telecom. (00 -543) Progress on Public Transit Committee (PTC). The Deputy Public Works Director provided an overview of the Committee's activities. Richard Neveln, PTC Member, stated public transit is an on -going issue; suggested the Committee continue and be established as an on -going Committee; noted AC Transit had an update on the PTC on its agenda. Allan Shore, PTC Member, stated in early discussions, the City's General Plan Consultant stated public transit can be footnoted in the General Plan, which is not sufficient; the Committee's work should be fully integrated into the General Plan. Councilmember Johnson stated there should be intense focus on public transit; she agrees with Mr. Neveln and Mr. Shore -- public transit should be made a permanent focus for Alameda, not just the duration of the Committee; requested staff to comment on transit being addressed in the General Plan. The Planning Director stated the City is required by law to have a Transportation Element [in the General Plan]; the current transportation section contains information on bicycles and has transportation policies; the General Plan gives policies the force Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 1 October 3, 2000 of law to guide physical development; public transit will be a key part; when the City updates the General Plan, policies and decisions which come from the Transit Plan will be incorporated. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the Bicycle Master Plan would be included in the Transportation Element of the General Plan. The Planning Director responded in the affirmative; stated the current General Plan adopted in 1991, has a map showing bicycle trails; said maps will be updated. Councilmember DeWitt stated public transit is a key issue facing the community. Councilmember Kerr noted Bike Alameda organization provides free valet parking for bike riders at public events. Vice Mayor Daysog stated one of the biggest challenges is getting people out of cars and into public transit. (00 -544) Proclamation declaring the week of October 1 through October 7, 2000, as "Public Power Week" in the City of Alameda. Vice Mayor Daysog read the Proclamation and presented it to Bill Garvine, Alameda Power & Telecom Marketing Manager. (00 -545) The Acting City Manager introduced the new Recreation and Park Director, Suzanne Ota. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Kerr moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.] ( *00 -546) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on September 5, 2000, and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on September 19, 2000. Approved. ( *00 -547) Recommendation to accept Year -end Financial Report for 1999 -00 Fiscal Year. Accepted. ( *00 -548) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a Consulting Contract with DKS Associates for Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 October 3, 2000 Development of a Travel Demand and Intersection Model as part of the General Plan Update Process. Accepted. ( *00 -549) Recommendation to accept the work of Western Roofing Services for Alameda Point, Phase 1 Buildings 11 and 400A Roof Repair and Fire Sprinkler Change -out (EDA Grant 07- 49- 03698.01), No. P.W. 01- 00 -01. Accepted. ( *00 -550) Recommendation to allocate funds and award Contract in the amount of $1,380,000 to Valley Crest for Earl Fry Golf Course Automated Irrigation System Project, No. P.W. 03- 00 -07. Accepted. ( *00 -551) Resolution No. 13277, "Designating the Person to Perform the Duties of the City Manager in the Event of His /Her Absence or Disability." Adopted. ( *00 -552) Resolution No. 13278, "Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Simplify Building Services Fees and Adjust Basis for Cost Recovery of Fire and Public Works Fees." Adopted. ( *00 -553) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,273,532.22. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS (00 -554) Resolution No. 13279, " Appointing Ann L. McCormick as a Member of the Public Utilities Board." Adopted. Councilmember DeWitt moved adoption of the Resolution. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1. The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms. McCormick with a Certificate of Appointment. (00 -555) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's denial of a Variance, V- 00 -14, to retain more than one freestanding sign per lot and more than two signs per street frontage. The site is located at 2200 Otis Drive, within a C -2 -PD, (Central Business /Planned Development Zoning District). Applicant /Appellant: Amir Sohrabi (Owner, Burger King); and (00 -555A) Resolution No. 13279 "Denying the Appeal of Amir Sohrabi and Upholding the 2200 Otis Drive." Vice Mayor Daysog Planning Board's Denial of Variance, V -00 -14 for Adopted. opened the public portion of the Hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal): Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 3 October 3, 2000 Arjans Sohrabi, Applicant/ Appellant; Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Amir Sohrabi, Applicant /Appellant. Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal): Don Patterson, Alameda. There being no further speakers, Vice Mayor Daysog closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Kerr requested staff to provide a brief history. The Development Review Manager stated there has been a difference of opinion regarding communication; the Planning Staff person who worked with the sign company [California Sign of Manteca] was clear that only one free standing sign was approved; he verified that the sign company was told the old sign had to be removed; staff did not communicate directly with the Burger King owner, because the sign company was the [permit] Applicant; staff assumed the sign company would pass said information onto the owner. Councilmember Johnson stated when the Planning Board considered the Office Max project, the obstruction created by the Office Max building was an issue; the Board discussed an additional sign; the Planning Board President stated: "the problem should be worked out;" the Planning Board agreed that the Office Max project created a problem for Burger King; the second sign was installed; based on Planning Board discussions, the Variance is appropriate; the new sign is not visible driving west - bound; if the Applicant [Burger King owner] was aware only one sign would be permitted, the sign would have been designed and placed to be visible from both directions; that she would support approval of a Variance. Councilmember Kerr stated the Office Max building does not prevent people from knowing the Burger King is there; the [Permit] Applicant for the second sign was the sign company; staff properly communicated with the sign company; it is unfortunate that the owner was not contacted; property owners commonly have agents deal with the City; having only one sign should not create a hardship on sales. Councilmember Johnson stated there was verbal indications to the true Applicant [Burger King owner]; the approval did not make it clear that existing sign had to be removed. Councilmember DeWitt stated the owner wants the sign to allow the public to see his business, which is blocked by the Office Max building; if the extra sign is being used to attract business, Regular Meeting Alameda City Council October 3, 2000 I others would want additional signs; if the owner is concerned about money lost on sign installation, the City is somewhat responsible and should share some of the cost to remove the sign. Arjon Sohrabi, Applicant, stated discussions about whether or not the sign would be allowed should have occurred prior to issuance of the permit; if the City did not want to allow the sign, the permit should not have been issued; conditions of approval were met; the City is responsible; the City should pay for the entire expense of putting in the sign; the law was followed; his name was on the application; the issue is both a financial and business issue. Councilmember DeWitt stated the City had some responsibility, however, the sign ordinance should be upheld. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether staff had a ballpark figure on how much should be reimbursed, e.g. filing fees, and cost of sign installation and removal. The Development Review Manager stated that he did not know said amounts. The Acting City Manager inquired whether staff should determine said amounts and return with a more definite answer. Councilmember DeWitt responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Kerr moved approval of sign removal [adoption of Resolution denying variance], and that Council direct staff to negotiate the cost and return the matter to Council. The City Attorney stated the City Claims Board can resolve issues up to $15,000; inquired whether Council would prefer to refer the matter to said Board. Councilmember Kerr amended her motion to approve sign removal - -deny the variance, and direct the matter be sent to the Claims Board. Councilmember Johnson stated the Applicant stated the cost of the sign was $15,000; that she would not support the motion; the Applicant should choose which sign will be removed; the City should be responsible for [the cost of] realigning the new sign. The City Attorney stated the matter could return to Council in Closed Session as discussion of resolving a claim. Vice Mayor Daysog stated error was made on many parts; the sign company failed to communicate clearly with the Applicants [Burger Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 5 October 3, 2000 King owner]; the City also seemed to fail to communicate with the Applicant; that he concurs with Councilmembers DeWitt and Kerr regarding enforcing the sign ordinance; the Sohrabi's [Applicant] should have to turn to the sign company for failing to communicate; the City should reimburse processing fees, however, the City should not pay for the entire cost of labor and sign. The City Attorney suggested the matter return in Closed Session as resolution of a claim; stated staff could provide documentation of all costs. Councilmember Kerr amended her motion to move approval of denying the Variance, and direct that cost negotiations be sent to staff for recommendation, including the Applicant submitting a claim, which would be brought to Council. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether said motion was acceptable to the City Attorney. The City Attorney responded in the affirmative. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, the Development Review Manager stated the fees paid were $586.00. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether dropping fees was part of the motion. Councilmember Kerr amended her motion to include dropping fees. Councilmember Johnson inquired who the Applicant was. The Development Review Manager stated the property owner was listed on the permit application form; the Applicant was California Sign of Manteca, California; property owners' signatures are always required; the Planner dealt with a representative from California Sign Company, who was listed as the Applicant. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the motion included direction on which sign would be removed. Councilmember Kerr stated the motion included that the owner choose which sign should be removed. Councilmember DeWitt concurred that the owner should decide which sign should remain. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 6 October 3, 2000 On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, and Kerr - 3. Noes: Councilmember Johnson - 1. Absent: Mayor Appezzato - 1. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA (00 -556) Ed Murphy, Alameda, stated there should be a discussion about [Alameda City Charter] Article 26 [Multiple Dwelling Units] . (00 -557) Don Patterson, Alameda, stated Measure A [1973] should be reviewed; that he supports Measure A's protection of Victorian heritage; an article in the New York Times Newspaper addressed the housing shortage in the Silicon Valley; Alameda could be facing the same issues and might miss development opportunities at the former Base; limits should be reviewed for both housing and office space; the issue needs to be addressed by a forum; the 980 freeway should be extended into Alameda by a flyover or new tube and the main part of Alameda should remain the same. (00 -558) William Smith, Alameda, requested reports on the Housing Forum's, Planning Board's and Economic Development Commission's recommendations be placed on the City Council Meeting prior to the November 7, 2000 Election; stated the Housing Forum and Planning Board have recommended review of Measure A Charter provisions, which have prohibited the construction of multi - family housing since the 1970's; with one exception, the Housing Forum achieved consensus that the City should initiate review of the Charter provisions; inquired why the Housing Forum's recommendation has not been placed on a City Council agenda; stated Measure A Charter provisions are illegal; the cheapest defense of illegal provisions is to keep them out of the public eye; defense of Measure A has already cost the City dearly; settlement of the Gatton and Murphy lawsuits had to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not millions; Mr. Murphy has found challenging Measure A more profitable than developing his property; Mr. Murphy initiated additional legal proceedings against the City last week; Mr. Murphy's 1997 settlement agreement prohibits him from disclosing its terms; the City Council should demonstrate effective leadership for workforce housing, and find a legal, morally justifiable and promising strategy for bringing about changes to the City Charter. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether construction of apartment buildings would increase traffic throughout Alameda. Mr. Smith responded proposing to add 20,000 jobs has not raised traffic concerns; new traffic patterns can be created; the Public Transit Committee can accomplish a lot as well. Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 October 3, 2000 (00 -559) John Ricci, Alameda, requested the Housing Forum's and Economic Development Commission's recommendations be placed on the City Council Meeting prior to the November 7, 2000 Election; stated that he participated on the Housing Forum; what has happened to the Forum's recommendation has been disappointing; he was concerned about East Housing - -the City seemed to be more interested in money than matters of justice; Measure A puts hundreds of millions of dollars at stake in regard to Base redevelopment; the whole process has not been very democratic. (00 -560) Allan Shore, Alameda, stated there is progress being made in the process to select a Master Developer for the Base; the Council has directed a committee be created to decide the rules for a Master Developer; there should be extensive community input; entities, such as the Alameda Point Collaborative, should be involved in the decisions guiding developers' qualifications and the business plan design; said groups should not select the developer, however, input would make rules clear to developers and show the public has a vested interest; urged Council to review the screening committee membership to avoid an argument about lack of public input; the process should be opened early; rules are critical. (00 -561) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated the City of Oakland is going through a street scape project, including large [bus] shelters; at his suggestion, BART is discussing creation of a virtual BART station in Alameda; a shuttle would pick up passengers at South Shore, Alameda Point and Bay Farm Island shopping center. (00 -562) Susan McCormack, Alameda, stated that she attended the Planning Board meeting when the Board discussed the impact of the Office Max building on Mr. Sohrabi's Burger King [Paragraph No. 00- 555]; Mr. Sohrabi was told the sign issue would be worked out; he was not told that a sign would have to be removed; suggested transcripts of the Planning Board meeting be reviewed. (00 -563) Hadi Monsef, Alameda, stated that he disagrees with the Council action on the Burger King sign [Paragraph No. 00 -5551; there are exceptions to the sign ordinance throughout Alameda; the City will have to bear unnecessary costs; the Council action does not support the business; further urged Council not to fool around with Measure A; stated it will divide the community; Marina Village was constructed under Measure A; the Base can be developed [without amendment to the City Charter]. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS (00 -564) Councilmember Kerr stated a property in the East End has Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 8 October 3, 2000 been the subject of repeated police calls; neighbors are concerned the elderly owner has lost control of her property; people under 18 who are not members of the family hang out on the front porch; neighbors are concerned about the health and safety of the children and the owner; trash is accumulating in the backyard; said activities have gone on for several years; requested the Assistant City Manager, Operations to have the City review the matter. (00 -565) Councilmember Kerr stated a survey she and staff completed indicated: 1) one out of every ten - and -a -half units in the City is subsidized; and 2) one out of every six rental units is subsidized; the City has aggressively pursued affordable housing; some cities put affordable housing funds from redevelopment in bank accounts; the City of Alameda built Independence Plaza with the affordable housing funds from Marina Village. (00 -566) Councilmember Kerr stated there are a limited number of bridges and tube lanes [to get] on and off the Island; in the past, the City has discussed housing and office development being restricted by Tube allocation; existing Tube capacity will not allow all development in the [Base] Reuse Plan; there have been creative public transit ideas; increasing the allowable housing and office density is not realistic; there is a severe traffic and transit problem in the City. (00 -567) Councilmember DeWitt announced that he received a letter from Alameda County Supervisor Keith Carson requesting that the Alameda City Council and citizens support the East Bay Million Family Celebration Day on October 16, 2000 at the Henry J. Kaiser Center in Oakland. (00 -568) Councilmember Johnson stated the City Attorney provided a memo on the City's appeal procedure; requested the [appeal] procedure be revised. (00 -569) Councilmember Johnson stated there are areas where the shoreline path signage is unclear; requested the City to look into creating better markings on the path; stated Berkeley is receiving money from the State or Metropolitan Transportation Commission for its path; grants might be available. In response to Acting City Manager Wonder's inquiry regarding specific areas of concern, Councilmember Johnson stated there are several areas from Bay Farm Island to Alameda Point. (00 -570) Councilmember Johnson stated there are tree diseases, such as Pine disease and Dutch Elms disease, in Alameda; there are large dead trees on the south portion of Park Street; the City Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 9 October 3, 2000 needs to deal with the dying trees; there should be a plan for removal and replacement. (00 -571) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board. Vice Mayor Daysog announced that Mayor Appezzato's nomination for appointment to the Planning Board was Frank Matarrese. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Vice Mayor Daysog adjourned the regular meeting at 9:26 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 10 October 3, 2000