body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-421 - ) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she continually receives positive
comments from the public.
(05-422) Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association,
announced that the Peanut Butter Jam Festival would be held on
September 10 and 11, 2005 between Webster Street and Pacific
Avenue. presented wine glasses to the Council; thanked the City and
Alameda Power & Telecom for sponsoring the event.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Mayor to send letters to federal legislators [paragraph no. 05-425]
was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-423) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on August 16, 2005. Approved.
(*05-424) Ratified bills in the amount of $11,953,915.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,2,"(05-425) Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send letters to
federal legislators supporting S. 1260 (Vitter) S. 113
(Feinstein), H.R. 2353 (Rogers) , and H.R. 3431 (Dent ) which amend
federal legislation to further restrict the establishment of tribal
gambling casinos.
Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) thanked the
Council for the efforts to stop the gambling casino proposal at
Martin Luther King Park; encouraged continual vigilance; stated
that the Tribe's application has not been withdrawn; there has been
no response to EBRPD's communications to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a true partnership between all
the affected cities, EBRPD, and the County; the public should be
informed of federal representatives actions; read a portion of the
proposed legislation: stated local control at the federal level
means the Governor that she would prefer local control be more
local; the Governor does not have much control over casinos there
is a lot of important work being done that will help the community.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a slew of legislation
pushing back on casinos' efforts to enter urban areas; H.R. 3431
would ensure local governments within 15 miles of a proposed site
have a say ; encouraged H. .R. 3431 be strengthened.
Councilmember Matarrese moved to approval of the staff
recommendation
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-426) Recommendatior to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk,
Inc. for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 25, No.
P.W. 05-04-06. Accepted.
(*05-427) Recommendation to approve the Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Restaurant and Bar Services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-428 ) Resolution No. 13888, ""Commending Alameda Free Library
Director Susan H. Hardie for Her Contributions to the City of
Alameda. Adopted.
Counci lmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,3,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Ms. Hardie thanked the Council for the resolution; stated that it
has been her pleasure and privilege to be involved with the new
library project.
( 05-429 - ) Resolution No. 13889, ""Appointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
as a Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted
(05-429A) Resolution No. 13890, ""Reappointing Robert F. Kelly as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted; and
(05-429B) Resolution No. 13891, ""Reappointing Anthony M. Santare as
a Member of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
[Note: Councilmember deHaan was away from the dais when the matter
was voted upon. ]
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Ashcraft and Mr. Santare.
(05-430) Public hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance
""Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building
and Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section 13-4 - (Alameda
Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I,
Section 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004 California
Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.
Introduced.
The Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,4,"(05-431) Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's decision to impose penalties for unauthorized
demolition. The site is located at 616 Pacific Avenue, within the
R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Erwin
Roxas and
(05-431A) Resolution No. 13892, ""Granting the Appeal and
Overturning the Historical Advisory Board's Decision to Uphold the
Five-Year Stay in Development for the Property Located at 616
Pacific Avenue. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the site's historic designation is
Level H; inquired whether Levels A through G are before Level H.
The Supervising Planner responded that designation ""N"" is for
buildings that could be placed on the National Register, ""S"" is for
buildings that could be placed on the State Register, and ""H"" is
the lowest level for potentially historic buildings that require
further investigation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Kevin Frederick, Alameda.
Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Paul Rezucha, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she could not tell from the drawings that
24 studs were retained; the neighbor mentioned that studs from the
north and west walls were being retained; inquired whether parts of
the walls would be used in the interior of the house.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any of the exteriors walls would
remain, to which the Acting Planning and Building Director
responded that the sidewall and part of the front wall would
remain.
Mayor Johnson stated that the west and front walls appear to be
completely new.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,5,"The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the walls on
the right-hand side of the house and most of the front wall would
remain; a number of the back and left side walls would be inside.
the ordinance addresses demolition of more than 30% of the value of
a home enclosing an exterior wall is not considered demolition.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent of the ordinance was to
preserve the historic structure; questioned how retaining some of
the studs preserves a historic structure.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the
ordinance was intended to preserve the historic structure; the
first floor, sidewall, and front wall would remain; the roof would
be raised; determining that the demolition would be less than 30%
was reasonable.
Mayor Johnson stated that the front and west walls look like new
walls.
The Acting Planner/Building Official stated that the front wall
would be changed; the original house had 45 degree angles at the
corners ; the new house would be squared off; the side walls would
remain; moving doors and windows is not considered demolition.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue is deconstruction versus demolition;
the owner believes that deconstruction is not demolition.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he truly
believes that the owner understood that the Planning Department
gave permission to dismantle or deconstruct, stack the pieces in
the backyard, and put the pieces back when the dry rot was
repaired; the ordinance needs to be reviewed; interpretation is
somewhat vague.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance is not doing what was intended,
is not protecting the historic assets, and could result in more
damage than protection; inquired what are the options under the
ordinance; stated that she did not understand how the 3,400 square
foot structure got through the design review process; the houses in
the area are smaller, one-story craftsman style homes; a 3,400
square foot home is gigantic for the neighborhood.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the lot is one of
the biggest on the block; there are 21 residential structures,
including 10 two-story homes and 11 one-story homes ranging from
792 to 4,480 square feet; 17 of the structures are single-family
dwellings, 3 are duplexes, and one is a 5-unit apartment building ;
three buildings are between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet each
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,6,"directly in back of the lot on Lincoln Avenue 15 of the buildings
are owner-occupied and 6 are rentals; the construction period
ranges from 1895 to 1999; the neighborhood has a fairly good mix
[of houses]
Mayor Johnson stated that the design review process needs to be
reviewed; there are commercial and two-story structures in the
area; Lincoln Avenue structures should not be considered; inquired
whether moving a piece of the structure counts as demolition.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded not
necessarily; the project is viewed as a whole to determine if
demolition is more or less than 30%; a new, red stamp will be
placed on all plans to indicate the Historical Advisory Board's
(HAB's ) approval is needed prior to demolishing more than 30% of a
pre-1942 - home.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed; people think
that deconstruction and reconstruction do not count as demolition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the demolition issue is being reviewed
independently; someone could demolish less than 30% of a house and
build a structure that does not look historic; on the other hand, a
50% demolition and remodeling project could retain the historic
look; that she is not sure how the demolition can be separated from
the design review; the matter needs to be reviewed in terms of what
is being protected.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the exterior walls
and roof percentages are reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the design does not reflect the historic
character of the building.
ouncilmember Daysog inquired when demolition versus deconstruction
issues would be addressed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded the issues
would be addressed as quickly as possible; that he would like to
review other jurisdiction's process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the situation is unfortunate; the
existing ordinance needs to be clarified; the Appellant needs to
move forward with the project for reasons stated in the report ;
staff and the Appellant have different interpretations; suggested
moving forward with the project and, at the same time, move forward
with resolving the larger issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,7,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the dry rot issue should be handled
from a construction standpoint.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that rotted
wood needs to be removed; new members could be attached if termite
damage has been repaired; termite repair can be more than 30% of a
house.
Mayor Johnson stated the Appellant should have been referred to the
HAB to get a demolition permit when the rot was discovered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the implication in
upholding the five-year stay.
The Supervising Planner responded the Appellant would need to
provide a landscaping plan and maintain the site for five years
with no building on it.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are other dynamics occurring;
inquired how many similar projects there are in the City.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are three
projects subject to the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one project was resolved, to
which the Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the bubble has been lost in the
interpretation of the ordinance; he is concerned with retaining the
architectural design; the scale seems to be imposing on the
neighborhood; inquired what the adjacent houses look like.
Mayor Johnson responded that the adjacent houses are both two-story
structures; that she does not recall the houses being close to
3,400 square feet.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the adjacent
houses are approximately 1,500 square feet each.
Councilmembei deHaan stated that there are multiple dwellings that
are expanding and becoming disproportional to the adjacent housing;
inquired whether the HAB reviews the issue.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the HAB
would address the issue if a historical structure were involved.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what floor area ratio was being
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,8,"employed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he was not
sure; stated that the floor area ratio falls within the lot
coverage requirements.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what was the maximum lot coverage.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded 40%; stated the
lot is deceiving because of the area behind the neighbor's garage.
Mayor Johnson stated the portion that goes around the corner is not
visible; the house would be very large on the lot; inquired whether
a fine could be imposed instead of the five-year penalty.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there would be
increased fees based on the valuation of the construction, for work
without permit, and for investigation.
Mayor Johnson stated other people should not be allowed to
deconstruct and reconstruct until the ordinance is revised.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the staff is
erring on the cautious side and referring people to the HAB.
Councilmember Daysog stated the lot would be roughly 9,450 square
feet if the dog run was not included, which would be a .37% floor
area ratio; housing should be viewed in terms of adjacent homes as
well as appropriate lot size; the home fits the lot size; there is
not a monstrous home affect.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the direction has been
given to refer people to the HAB, to which the Acting Planning and
Building Director responded that people are being referred to the
HAB if demolition appears to be close to 30%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that 30% could be a calculation
based on the structure of the building and not necessarily in
context with the intent of the ordinance; there should be some
discretion applied or guidance adopted allowing 25% or 30%
demolition to the front of a building and roofline would not meet
the real intent of the ordinance; inquired whether there is any
refinement on the plan check level that ties back to the issue of
design review.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he makes the
30% determination during design review; that he always gives more
weight to the removal of exterior walls, particularly front walls,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,9,"versus interior walls.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was any guidance
being given now to prevent misinterpretation.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there are
no new guidelines i staff would be looking more closely.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to know that the intent
of the ordinance will be carried out; the drawings do not show any
resemblance to the original house.
Councilmember deHaan stated 30% is hard to interpreti inquired
whether the percentage should be more.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded a method other
than percentage should be defined.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is no need to wait for an ordinance
revision to carry out the intent noted that a defacto demolition
of a historic structure will not be allowed because of a badly
drafted ordinance.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the matter is
being addressed; there should not be any similar issues in the
future.
The City Manager stated that there have been many internal
discussions regarding the lack of direction in some parts of the
ordinance; inconsistencies need to be address guidelines would be
handled internally.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether deconstruction and reconstruction
would be addressed, to which the Acting Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated that HAB input would be sought.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some structures have the potential for
historic designation but have not been certified; home owners
should not have to jump through hoops if the house is not truly
historic; many houses are old, but not historic; she does not want
to preserve old, non-historic houses inquired how the issue could
be balanced.
Mayor Johnson stated that owners could apply to have their houses
removed from the historic study list.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ""H"" designation is for old
houses that may have the potential to be historic, but need to be
studied more; houses may not be worth further study; a withdrawal
process for non-historic houses may be necessary; the project's
character issues can be addressed in design review.
Councilmember deHaan stated that 500 Central Avenue is a historical
structure.
The Supervising Planner stated that 500 Central Avenue has an ""S""
designation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that 30% demolition for 500 Central
Avenue was unrealistic and should have been at 80%; stated that he
has concerns with how tonight's decision would impact the two other
outstanding projects.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that tonight's
decision would only affect 500 Central Avenue; the other property
was not a listed building; there is another set of criteria for
ore-1942 houses; there was a whole different set of facts regarding
500 Central Avenue; the owner was aware of what he was doing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the owner's awareness was a
distinction that could be used.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he thought
so; the owner tore down a house on the same property last year
without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated not setting precedents is important; inquired
whether the Appellant would have been successful in removing the
property from the historical list at either the HAB or Council
level.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that staff
believes that the Appellant would have been granted a certificate
of approval for demolition if sought prior to demolition; the house
has been significantly remodeled in the past 100 years; the house
is very similar to a building that received a certificate of
approval for demolition from the HAB; the Appellant was denied
after the fact.
Mayor Johnson stated that contributing factors are part of the
ordinance.
The City Manager stated that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in
terms of options and penalties each project will be reviewed and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,11,"determinations will be made based upon the circumstances of the
building.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether hold harmless clauses are standard
on planning and building resolutions.
The City Attorney responded the clause is not standard; the clause
is requested to be included in certain cases.
Councilmember deHaan stated that much of tonight's discussion is
based upon interpretation; stated that he is comfortable with the
staff's recommendation based upon what has been provided.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is very active. AAPS
regularly advises him when there is any hint of activity.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether residents are advised about the
process to have their houses de-listed; some ambiguity could be
cleared.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there is not a
current process.
Councilmember Daysog stated many issues suggest the need to
strengthening
the
ordinance
with
regard
to
demolition/deconstruction of historic properties the project
should move forward; the Appellant was working in good faith; there
appears to be strong reasons for moving forward with the project
while the ordinance is improved.
Councilmember Daysog moved to approval of the staff recommendation.
[Adoption of the resolution Granting the Appeal and directing the
City Manager to review provisions of Section 13-21 of the Alameda
Municipal Code related to the demolition of historic structures and
develop, with input from the community and HAB, recommended
amendments and penalty options. ]
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the design issue could be re- -
examined.
The Supervising Planner stated that the design review has already
been approved; the Appellant has been acting under the approval.
Mayor Johnson stated that 3,400 square feet is too much for the
neighborhood.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Appellant could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,12,"requested to consider re-design; noted the Appellant has already
pulled permits and has vested the construction.
Mayor Johnson stated people would question why the project was
approved in ten years.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands Mayor Johnson's
concern with the size, but that the footprint is appropriate for
the parcel.
Mayor Johnson stated lot coverage cannot be dealt with in a vacuum;
the rest of the neighborhood needs to be addressed. requested that
staff inquire whether the Appellant would be willing to look at the
design review issue.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she sympathizes with Mayor Johnson's
concern about the size of the house; Alameda property owners have
certain rights if the structure fits within the box of the zoning
code; zoning for every other property in the City would be changed
unless the zoning code is changed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the issue should be re-examined; lot
coverage is not an entitlement there is a design review standard
for neighborhood compatibility.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the house would be architecturally
the same if cut back by 800 to 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the neighbors thought about the
project.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there was
a ten-day notice and no comments were received.
Mayor Johnson inquired who received the notice, to which the Acting
Planning and Building Director responded the property owners.
Mayor Johnson stated renters would not be informed about the
project.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the
neighborhood is predominately owner occupied; County records
indicate that 15 of the 21 buildings are owner occupied; 6 of the
buildings are rental.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to address the possibility of
redesign with the Appellant.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,13,"***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:10 p.m
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Applicant
is unable to redesign the house; the house is designed for an
elderly person in a wheelchair; the hallways are 5 feet wide;
several bathrooms have a turning radius for a wheelchair.
Mayor Johnson stated redesigning the sidewall would make the house
look better noted the wall looks like a factory wall.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Johnson stated that an
architectural separation between the stories would not be that
costly.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Appellant
could be requested to consider a different exterior sidewall
design.
The Appellant agreed.
Mayor Johnson stated the building could look a lot better than the
drawings; less detailed work is easier for an owner-builder; making
the building look better is worth the effort; the larger issue of
design review needs to be addressed; awareness of neighborhood
compatibility needs to be addressed in the design review process.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( 05-432 - ) Resolution No. 13893, ""Empowering the City Attorney to
Employ Special Legal Counsel. "" Adopted and
(05-432A) Recommendation to approve Policy regarding Hiring
Procedures for Special Legal Counsel.
Councilmember Daysog extended his appreciation to the City Attorney
for addressing some of the Council's issues; stated that the
resolution is not just for the Council but for the City for many
years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,14,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-433) Former Councilmemer Lil Arnerich, Alameda, discussed
disaster preparedness; stated that the Council should take charge
in working with the Police, Fire, Public Works Departments, and
schools to ensure that there is a detailed plan to provide
emergency services and information to the community in case of a
disaster submitted a list of the Alameda County Fair's response
team.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the tabletop exercise was performed
once a year.
Mr. Arnerich responded in the affirmative; stated that the exercise
is different from the City's exercise; noted the responsible
parties should be identified before a disaster occurs; the table
top exercise has been conducted every year for six years and works
very well.
(05-434) Bill Smith, Alameda discussed work/live studios, 500
Central Avenue, and fast boats.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-435) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, Public Art Commission and Recreation and Parks
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg for
reappointment to the Public Art Commission, and Terri Bertero Ogden
for appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
(05-436) The Fire Chief provided information on Hurricane Katrina
Disaster Relief and the City's Emergency Operation Plan and
upcoming exercises.
Mayor Johnson stated that a lot of communication has been received
regarding Hurricane Katrina and the City's disaster preparednessi
noted that the Fire Chief would provide information on how the
community could help the hurricane victims.
The Fire Chief stated that Hurricane Katrina is a challenging and
unique type of disaster; continual flooding waters have delayed
infrastructure repair; financial contributions are needed; provided
contact information for the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army
and the United Way, Bay Area; stated that the City's Emergency
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,15,"Operation Plan is very comprehensive and outlines who is in charge
and the responsibilities of each individual; the Mayor and the
Council are the policy makers; the City Manager is in charge of the
Emergency Operations Center ( EOC ; the City Manager would provide
information on key decision points to the Council; EOC staff would
work 12-hour shifts throughout the duration of a disaster; the City
has a siren and warning system to effectively alert the community
in an emergency; the system keys the community to tune into Channel
15 or 1280 AM on the radio; there are over 100 people trained
through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) ; some teams
have been organized in specific areas; there will be a series of
table top exercises in October and a functional exercise in
November the EOC would be activated during the table top
exercises; the City Manager and staff would be present and would be
given a complex scenario; logistical issues such as shelter, lost
power and water, and accesses to the City are addressed; the
emergency responders would work through a City-based scenario
during the functional exercise, while the Council would be making
policy decisions.
Mayor Johnson stated that it would be good for Councilmembers to
attend the exercises; part of the exercise should address which
issues are policy orientated; Councilmembers need to know where to
report and what their responsibilities are when a disaster occurs;
the phones and cable channels might not work during a disaster.
The Fire Chief stated that the Council would report to the
Chambers.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was not sure that the Council should
report to the Chambers if the electricity and cable are not
working; the issue needs to be addressed.
The Fire Chief stated that the first process would be for the
Council to report to the Chambers; another building would be
specified if the equipment in the Chambers was not working.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to better understand the
intent of having the Council report to the Chambers.
The Fire Chief stated that the Council would be involved in the
planning process.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to be better informed
and confident that plans are in place; stated that the Council
needs to know the worst-case scenario; there is a lot of sandy soil
and fill throughout the City; more than the bridges could be lost
in the event of an earthquake; some issues that the Council needs
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,16,"to
address are : how people would be evacuated, whether helicopters
would be available, and what would happen to the water supply;
people need to know how to turn off gas lines; stated that cable
communicatior would most likely be out during a disaster.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a current copy of the City's
Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter be placed on an agenda
for discussion; stated that questions have been raised regarding
the placement of people and the use of public facilities including
the schools; that he would rather not wait until the exercise is
performed in October; the matter needs to be addressed as soon as
possible; recommendations could be made and policy direction could
be given on what is in place now.
The City Manager stated that the Council would be provided with a
copy of the Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter could be
placed on an agenda for future discussion; issues that need
direction would be identified; sheltering questions could be
answered through the City's relationships with other agencies;
tonight's intention was to ensure that the audience knows where
contributions can be made to the current disaster victims and that
the City has a plan in case a disaster occurs.
ouncilmember deHaan stated that everyone has a heavy heart right
now; the gas surge was a best-case scenario; resources were
available to handle the situation; the liquefaction was monumental
(particularly at the Naval Air Station) during the earthquake
tonight's discussion is timely; noted that he was sorry the
discussion had to be within the current circumstances; stated that
the comments are worthwhile and appreciated; the Council has
responsibilities; stated that he takes the responsibility
seriously; he is concerned with communication and support resources
in the City; the Fire and Police Departments are on 24-hour shifts,
but other departments are not; stated that he looks forward to
further discussion.
( 05-437) - Councilmember Daysog requested: 1) an update on the
status of the live/work issues, 2) a timetable outlining when the
matter would be addressed, and 3) an update on the court issues.
(05-438) - Councilmember Daysog requested a review of current and
future developments occurring in the City of Oakland that could
have impacts on the City of Alameda; stated that a recent cable
television show mentioned a project that would be occurring at Jack
London Square.
(05-439) - Councilmember Daysog stated that there seem to have been
a number of accidents at the intersection of Constitution Way and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,17,"Pacific Avenue ; there was an accident yesterday around 4:00 p.m. ;
the Police and Fire Departments responded quicklyi there was a
death at the location last year and another death one block upi
requested the area be reviewed such as the possibility of bushes
being too high.
(05-440) Councilmember Daysog stated that he was glad that
disaster readiness was on the minds of everyone; the next disaster
or terrorism strike is not a matter of if, but when; planning ahead
benefits the community.
(05-441) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received a
communication from the town of Asuchio, El Salvador in response to
a request from the Social Service Human Relations Board's (SSHRB)
Sister City Committee; requested the response be conveyed to the
SSHRB for consideration.
(05-442 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a proposed
development between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue below International
Boulevard in Oakland for 800 to 1200 units of housing the two
streets feed into the Fruitvale and Park Street Bridges; the City
should keep an eye on development that occurs on both sides of the
Estuary.
(05-443) Councilmember deHaan stated periodic updates on the
budget are supposed to be provided to Council. inquired how often
the updates were to occur.
Mayor Johnson responded quarterly.
The City Manager stated that an update is scheduled for next month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the ten-year forecast would be
presented, to which the City Manager responded November, along with
the infrastructure budget.
ADJOURNMENT
(05-444) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 10:00 p.m. in memory of the Hurricane
Katrina victims.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 6, 2005- -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-417 - ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiator
:
Beverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney.
(05-418) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
(05-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One.
(05-420) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the City Council Meeting at
7:25 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 10:05 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council discussed labor negotiations; regarding
Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council did not discuss
the matter; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council
directed that the matter be further researched and brought back on
September 20, 2005; and regarding Conference with Real Property
Negotiators, the Council directed that a response letter be sent.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf