body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 10:30 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
(06-428 - ) Proclamation expressing thanks to Contra Costa Newspapers
and Its Employees, Gary Kidwell and Michael Switzer.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Kidwell
and Mr. Switzer.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Proclamation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the news racks have made a huge difference in
the business districts.
Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated former
Councilmember Karin Lucas raised the issue years ago; the City has
attractive newspaper racks thanks to everyone's efforts.
(06-429) Proclamation declaring September 17, 2006 as Alameda
Legacy Home Tour Day in the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judith Lynch,
Historical Advisory Board (HAB) Member, and Richard Knight, HAB
Member.
Councilmember deHaan noted the home tours have been held for at
least 32 years.
(06-430) Presentation by West Alameda Business Association
regarding the Peanut Butter and Jam festival.
Ed Clark, WABA, stated the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival would be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,2,"the best ever invited everyone to attend; stated WABA is losing
Sheri Stieg as Executive Director; introduced the new Executive
Director, Kathy Moehring; presented Council with jars of Skippy
Peanut Butter.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, stated that she would
continue where Ms. Stieg left off; encouraged everyone to attend
the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival and outlined the event.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Moehring to explain why the event is
named the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival, to which Ms. Moehring
responded Skippy Peanut Butter was invented on Webster Street.
Mr. Clark noted Skippy contributed over $15,000 worth of free
Peanut Butter.
Mayor Johnson congratulated Ms. Moehring; stated Ms. Stieg did a
great job.
Councilmember deHaan suggested that Council present Ms. Stieg with
a proclamation; stated Webster Street has a new vitality.
(06-431) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing Open Market
Purchase [paragraph no. 06-437], Resolution Authorizing Sale of
Emergency Generators [paragraph no. 06-438], Resolution Amending
Exhibit A - Compensation Plan [paragraph no. 06-439], and Public
Hearing to consider Ordinance [paragraph no. 06-442 ] were 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. . ]
( *06-432) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on August 15, 2006. Approved.
(*06-433) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,047,654.18.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,3,"(*06-434) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. Accepted.
( *06-435) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Agreement with
Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope of
work and price for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library
Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01. Accepted.
( (*06-436) Recommendation to reject Bids for the Modular
Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park.
Accepted; and
(*06-436A) Resolution No. 14006, ""Authorizing Open Market
Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda
City Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site
Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17, and Authorizing
the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement for $650,000,
Including a 10% Contingency. Adopted.
(06-437) Resolution No. 14007, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase of
Twelve Vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an Amount Not to
Exceed $251,230.00. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the staff report indicates the
alternate fuel vehicle policy was considered but alternate fuel
vehicles are not recommended; inquired whether the use of mini
pickups was analyzed; stated a mini pickup was used for a recent
dedication ceremony and an electric flatbed could have been used.
The Public Works Director responded use is reviewed and discussed
with departments; stated the Recreation and Parks Director
indicated a flatbed could not have been used at the dedication
ceremony based on bed size; the vehicles being replaced carry
equipment, tools, parts and chemicals for pool maintenance, which
could not be accommodated by the size of the electric flatbed.
Public Works mini trucks travel outside of the City; the most
reliable electric flatbeds on the market only travel 25 miles per
hour, which would not work for travel out of Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the level of detail provided
by the Public Works Director be included in staff reports in the
future; inquired whether diesel fuel was evaluated for the one ton
dump trucks and three quarter ton pickup trucks.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
diesel is more expensive, which is one reason diesel was not
selected; that he is working on converting three existing vehicles
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,4,"Councilmember Daysog inquired about the plans for the $14,800 in
savings; inquired whether there is a fund for alternative fuel
vehicles.
The Public Works Director responded all vehicles are purchased from
the same fund; stated five electric vehicles would be purchased by
the end of the fiscal year; the savings return to the vehicle
replacement fund.
The City Manager stated the purchase is the result of the new
approach to manage vehicle replacement; savings remain in the fund
along with vehicle sales revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-438) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electric Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000. Not adopted.
Hadi Monsef, Alameda, urged Council to reject the recommendation
stated $1 million of public funds would be given away; the
situation of the world could impact the supply of electricity to
the City: the future is too unstable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether potential generator uses could arise
and whether the generators could be used in the event of a disaster
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,5,"or if the City's power supply were cut off; further inquired
whether the generators at the former Base make the generators
[proposed for sale] unnecessary.
The Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) General Manager responded
there is not a zero probability that the generators never would be
used; stated combustion turbines near Alameda Point would serve all
of the load assuming customers were not furiously using
electricity; typically people are responsible during
parts of the system might be down in the event of a major emergency
and the entire load would not be served.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the generators would be helpful if
power lines were down in an area.
The AP&T General Manager responded possibly; stated currently the
generators are permitted as stationary; moving the generators is
not a simple task; the system has to be tested; the process takes
96 to 100 hours assuming roads are passable.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City's emergency response
group has reviewed the asset to determine whether it is part of
disaster preparation.
AP&T General Manager stated AP&T has a smaller unit, which is very
portable and can be hooked into smaller service areas very easily.
The Disaster Preparation Officer stated any asset would be an
adjunct to the infrastructure; however, the equipment is semi- -
permanently mounted; the two turbines [near Alameda Point ] would
provide 50-60% of normal demand; the Public Utilities Board's
recommendation seems prudent having something more mobile would be
more appropriate; other types of equipment are more suitable for
mobile generation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the generators are included
in the disaster relief plan.
The Disaster Preparation Officer responded in the negative; stated
the combustion turbines would be used to provide back up power to
the City in the event of a power disruption; mobile units would
better serve specific areas of the City; the City would be better
served with additional mobile units.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps the generators could be sold and
mobile units could be purchased.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the units were purchased in 2001 for $1.8
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,6,"million; inquired whether, including depreciation, the units are
being sold for the amount they are worth.
The AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what the money would be used for if the
units were sold.
The AP&T General Manager responded the money would be used for
other infrastructure needs; stated one capital project in mind is a
second feeder to Coast Guard Island.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would be the cost of a mobile
unit, to which the Disaster Preparation Officer responded that he
does not know the amount.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the units have a 10-year
useful life period.
The AP&T General Manager responded the units have a 10 or 20 year
life period; stated maintenance staff indicated the life of the
generators is rapidly declining.
Councilmember Daysog stated the price is good if the life is 10-
years; said information would be useful; the conversation should be
from the vantage point of the objective that the City would achieve
from selling the generators; more information is needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to know the impact on
disaster preparedness and whether proceeds should be used to
purchase mobile generators to make the City better prepared in the
event of a disaster; that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog
that more information is needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember
Daysog about understanding the goal; homeland security money should
be pursued for a second line to Coast Guard Island; the money from
the sale should replace the original use; more information on the
goal is needed.
The AP&T General Manager stated the units were purchased for
rolling blackouts; AP&T's portfolio has been properly planned and
the City should not be subject to rolling blackouts; the generators
are quite cumbersome and would not be best for disaster response ;
there are costs for maintenance and fuel.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether keeping the units in stand by
mode costs $30,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,7,"The AP&T General Manager responded the cost covers fuel and does
not include labor and maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the total cost is closer to
$50,000, to which the AP&T General Manager responded the cost is
around $50,000 to $60,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the amount might be reasonable for
disaster preparation; the generators have not been used very much;
the viability of using the units has not been discussed; the matter
should be researched further to better understand the asset.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $30,000 is spent only
when the generators are operated, to which the AP&T General Manager
responded the money is spent on testing.
The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back with
additional information.
Councilmember deHaan stated the additional information should
include more detail on whether the units could be made mobile,
whether the City should look into alternative, smaller generators
that are more mobile, and whether the units [proposed for sale]
have a place in disaster preparation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like information on the
useful life and evaluation from an economic perspective.
The AP&T General Manager noted only line workers can move the
generators.
Councilmember deHaan stated perhaps easier connection points could
be set up in various spots throughout the City; the matter should
be researched further.
(06-439) Resolution No. 14008, ""Amending Exhibit A - Compensation
Plan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by
Resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five-Day Workweek
Alternative with a Corresponding Salary Range for the
Classifications of Library Director and Recreation and Parks
Director. Amended ( including title) and adopted;
(06-439A) Resolution No. 13009, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principle
Executive Assistant, Purchasing and Payables Coordinator and
Supervising Animal Control Officer.' Adopted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,8,"(06-439B) Resolution No. 13010, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the
Salary Range for the Classification of Transportation Coordinator. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Deputy City Manager
discussion be addressed at the next Council meeting and the
remainder of the resolutions be adopted tonight.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor Johnson clarified the motion is to adopt the resolutions,
with the exclusion of the Deputy City Manager position.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( *06-440) - Resolution No. 14011, ""Appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the
Bay Area Library Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board. ""
Adopted.
(*06-441) Ordinance No. 2951, ""Approving and Authorizing the Lease
of City-Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur M.
Jawad and Julia Jawad. Finally passed.
(06-442) Public Hearing to consider Ordinance Reclassifying and
Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from Open
Space (O) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property Located
at 500 Maitland Drive. Introduced.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City owned the property
and whether the property flipped over into the Harbor Bay
development area when Maitland Drive was changed.
The Planner III responded in the affirmative; stated over an acre
of City land on the other side of Maitland Drive moved to the
southwest side when Maitland Drive was realigned; the City sold the
land to Harbor Bay and amended the General Plan designation shortly
after; provided the exhibit to the Ordinance.
Mayor Johnson stated the proceeds of the sale went into an open
space fund.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the new owner is proposing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,9,"The Planner III stated the existing self-storage and RV storage
facility is proposing expansion; most of the land is zoned
Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development like the rest of the
business park; however, the over one acre area was never rezoned ;
the Planning Board approved all entitlements and recommends
approval of the rezoning.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the entire amount of the
addition, to which the Planner III responded five acres.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the gun range used to be
located on the site, to which the Planner III responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site is clean.
The Planner III responded there was discussion of lead radiation;
he could review the record.
Councilmember deHaan stated the area is a gateway furthering the
use of a storage yard does not improve eye appeal; he is concerned
about contamination.
The Planner III stated paving over lead in the dirt would contain
contamination
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board addressed
the matter; to which the Planner III responded the Planning Board
did not discuss lead contamination, but did discuss the area as a
gateway, landscaping requirements, adjacent landscaping and paths.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the property was transferred
as open space with the assumption it would remain open space.
Mayor Johnson responded the assumption was not that the property
would remain open space; the tradeoff was that a small, not very
useful open space parcel would be exchanged for $1 million that
would be designated to buy open space or support more useable open
space projects; the intent was always to allow commercial use.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some of the proceeds went towards the
purchase of land adjacent to Towata Park.
Mayor Johnson stated the money was a proposed local match for an
Estuary Park grant that the City did not receive; the City is now
considering using the money to purchase the Beltline.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,10,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter
because he voted against having an RV park on the West End and to
be fair he did not want to support expansion of an RV park on
Harbor Bay.
Mayor Johnson noted the original RV park was a requirement the City
put on the developer.
The Planner III stated expansion was also part of the original
requirement.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-443) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of the alteration of more than thirty
percent of the value of historically designated single-family homes
at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 Ninth Street and adoption of related
resolution.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated three duplexes are being created;
inquired whether the square footage of the lot complies with
Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether variances are not needed, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether some of the four outstanding
issues outlined in the staff report have been resolved.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated trim
replacement has been resolved; new windows would be needed for
energy conservation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the hardboard siding issue has
been resolved.
The Reconstruction Specialist II responded that she has been in
extensive conversations with Chris Buckley and the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; stated an agreement has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,11,"been reached on three of the four items, with the exception of the
walkway; there is also agreement on the items in the most recent
letter AAPS submitted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the walkway is a Design Review
item that is not within the purview of the Historical Advisory
Board (HAB) .
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
HAB'S purview is alteration of historic structures.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Design Review would be
completed at the staff level, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current square footage of each
structure.
The Reconstruction Specialist II responded 1530 and 1532 Ninth
Street are 1100 square feet and would be increased to 3106 square
feet; 1532 1/2 Ninth Street is 1066 and would be increased to 2632
square feet.
Councilmember Daysog requested an explanation of the ""Golden Mean. ""
The Supervising Planner responded the Golden Mean was accepted by
Council as part of the residential design guidelines and creates a
proportion for Victorians with the upper level larger than the
lower level; the upper level has to be 60%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long the Golden Mean has been in
place, to which the Supervising Planner responded less than two
years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site would be re-graded
to comply with the Golden Mean, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the level of the
walkways, to which the Supervising Planner responded the walkways
would be level with the entry; retaining walls would be used.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be higher [than
the walkways], to which Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the [grading] approach has
been used before, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,12,"negative.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether precedence would be set;
inquired about the driveway width.
The Supervising Planner stated the driveway is eight feet.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Li-Sheng Fu, Architect.
Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Candace Fitzgerald, Alameda.
Neutral Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Richard W. Rutter, AAPS; and
Mark Irons, Historical Advisory Board (provided handout)
Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
* * *
(06-444) Following Mr. Buckley's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
* * *
Mayor Johnson stated the house reminds her of a house on Pacific
Avenue. she would like more detail to make the buildings'
appearance look like the original character of the house; the side
views are not attractive; she is concerned with the size of the
structures.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project provides the key to
compromising the Golden Mean; further stated the project done with
the City's help on San Jose Avenue is disproportionate with the
rest of the community; in addition to the Golden Mean, the width of
the driveway is of concern.
Mayor Johnson clarified although AAPS is not supporting the
project, its position is not opposed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Golden Mean is a visual
presentation based on aesthetics; achieving the Golden Mean by
grading is a legitimate approach; squeezing in the number of units
and parking spaces seems difficult; however, the project cannot be
turned down if it meets the Code. the Code should be changed if
Council does not like the way the Code works; that he would prefer
the front path to go straight to the door; the project is not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,13,"simple and is massive.
Mayor Johnson stated Design Review is not being considered; that
she agrees with the HAB that the alterations as proposed would
adversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings; the
compromises reached are not enough to maintain the historic
character of the buildings review of the historic nature should
not be limited to the front.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would support sending the
matter back to see if the HAB can work out a solution to meet the
goal of maintaining the historic integrity as much as possible.
Councilmember Daysog stated a decision could be made on design
issues that the HAB reviewed; the main issue is the Golden Mean;
the Golden Mean is based on nature, such as trees and seashells;
digging down might satisfy the ratio on paper, but he is worried
and would like the HAB to review the matter further.
Mayor Johnson stated size is an issue and relates to historic
character.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she has concerns with size, massing,
and the width of the driveway; however, the structures meet the
zoning regulations; the zoning regulations need to be changed or an
overlay needs to be added that applies to Victorians and historic
structures if Council does not like the way the project looks; the
project should not be penalized because Council does not like the
way it looks; sides of Victorian structures tend to be plain; the
structure is old and has not been cared for someone is willing to
""rehab"" the structures; being strict on every project might keep
people from attempting to fix historic structures; questioned
whether allowing historic structures to decay is better; stated
someone has to pay for the project; three of the four outstanding
issues have been resolved; the walkway is not under the HAB's
purview; that she supports overturning the HAB's decision and would
provide direction to staff to negotiate with the architect and
receive input from AAPS on the front walkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has additional authority because
demolition of a historic structure is being requested; the proposal
is to almost triple the size of three adjacent structures
concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to send the
matter back to the HAB; stated relative size to the neighborhood
should be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson; the
projects on Pacific and San Jose Avenues are disproportionate and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,14,"stretched the envelope; the project drops 18 inches to get into the
lower level; there has to be another wayi he is concerned with mass
and the eight-foot driveway the Fire Department should review the
driveway.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to clarify whether the
eight-foot driveway meets code.
The Supervising Planner stated the existing driveway can be
retained; further stated the minimum code for driveways now is
eight and a half feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated relation to other houses in the
neighborhood is a planning and design issue.
Mayor Johnson stated more work needs to be done; size is relevant
to the historic character of the house; approving the demolition is
an extraordinary act and historic preservation should be expected
in return; the duplexes are going to be larger than some houses in
Alameda; limiting the size and requesting more details would
preserve the historic character.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to the
HAB to review the impact of the expansion on the historic nature of
the structures and review additional detail to bring the structures
closer to original form.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that one
of the structures could be moved closer to the property line, which
could change the opportunity of making the project work and change
access points.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are examples of
remodels that have gone wrong; the project meets Code but no one
likes the look; questioned when the Code would be changed stated
people trying to do projects should have a better idea about what
is acceptable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the big issue is the 30%
[demolition] or else the project should go forward.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City should be vigilant i City
funding is going into the project.
The Supervising Planner noted that the houses are covered in
asbestos shingles and the detail would not be known until the
shingles are removed; therefore, the drawing is devoid of some
details; the shadow line would be found to determine trim detail.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,15,"Mayor Johnson stated that she did not notice a provision that
requires restoration of trim detail.
The Supervising Planner stated a condition requires the project be
completed to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
Mayor Johnson stated trim might help; hopefully something else can
be done to the side of the buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified the intent of the motion is to
have the HAB come up with a solution and not send the matter back
to Council; requested staff to convey that the HAB should work with
the architect and owner to come up with a solution and address the
issues of: mass relative to the historic proportions of the
buildings and visual appearance from the street to ensure the
buildings are rehabilitated to look like Victorians, not something
else.
Mayor Johnson stated size is important to her; duplexes, with each
unit bigger than many homes in Alameda, are not needed.
Ms. Fitzgerald noted the average house size on Mastic Court is 850
square feet.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council would be pleased
with something short of complete restoration if the matter were
sent back to the HAB.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not expect complete restoration
and does not mind some increase in size.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants something to work; the
buildings are not attractive, are deteriorating and need to be
upgraded in a timely manner requested the matter be placed on the
next HAB Meeting agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see how the
Golden Mean could be met without the grading option; all
alternatives should be exercised; the grading option might work
without handicap access.
The Planning and Building Director stated staff would work with the
architect and AAPS; since the buildings are not on the historic
list, the HAB review is only whether the building can be altered,
not all the details of restoration.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,16,"Mayor Johnson stated the HAB has authority to make the finding that
the project, as proposed, would adversely affect the historic
significance of the dwelling; further stated there has to be a
commitment that what is built maintains the historic significance
as the tradeoff to allow demolition.
Councilmember deHaan stated the buildings were constructed in the
1800's; the property is important even though the buildings are not
on the historic list.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the intention of the motion is to
have the HAB look at alternative plans to address the issue of mass
and the appearance from the front; that he does not want the
direction construed as a restoration critique; the Council wants
the project to appear that it belongs, people to know the buildings
are Victorians by looking at the buildings, and does not want the
buildings turned into something else; the HAB has to focus down
with input from AAPS, the architect and owner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the HAB reviewed the grading
issue, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan restated that he seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote Ayes Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and
Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
(06-445) Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution
Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline
the Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments Fee
Schedules. Continued.
The City Manager suggested that the matter be continued for 30
days.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the matter for
30 days.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-446 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments
and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13-2 -
(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing), to
Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,17,"Extinguishing Systems. Continued to September 19, 2006.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of continuing to matter for two
weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-447) - Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001, Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment City-wide; and
(06-447A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 30-4.9A.g.8 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading Space) of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions.
Continued to September 19, 2006.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the matter for
two weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-448) - Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated the Santa Clara Avenue
and Willow Avenue transit shelter and the Santa Clara Avenue and
Walnut Street canopy need maintenance; graffiti is present at both
transit shelters.
Councilmember deHaan stated vandalism increases if condoned.
graffiti has not been brought down to a working level; efforts need
to be made to clean up graffiti immediately.
(06-449) Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Mayor Johnson for sticking
up for the historic preservation aspect of the Ninth Street
property and Commissioner Matarrese for coming up with a solution
on the Rutledge appeal.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-450) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic
Development Commission, Golf Commission, and Recreation and Park
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Jessica Lindsey and Alan J. Ryan for
appointment to the Economic Development Commissioner, Betsy E.
Gammell for appointment to the Golf Commission, and Jo Kahuanui for
appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,18,"(06-451)
-
Councilmember deHaan stated the Tube lighting has been on
the board for at least three years and CalTrans has deferred the
project for two years; he would like the issue to be tracked; the
project needs to move forward.
(06-452) Councilmember deHaan stated the Central Avenue
[crosswalk] embedded lighting is not functioning; inquired when the
Park Street embedded lighting would be done near Boniere Bakery.
(06-453) Councilmember deHaan stated that Park Street trash
receptacles overflowed from the weekend; trash pick up should be
brought under control within the City before the rainy season.
(06-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated repairs are being made on
Lincoln Avenue and Park Street overhead wires; half of the weed-
filled triangle near Tilden Way has been shaved away; inquired
whether the other half could be shaved and landscaped.
The City Manager responded the issue would be addressed.
(06-455) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Long's Drug
Store was supposed to do some landscape upgrades.
The City Manager stated she should look into the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some
landscaping on the corner across from City Hall.
(06-456) Mayor Johnson stated that large weeds have grown at the
Otis Drive median off the Bay Farm Bridge.
The City Manager stated she would talk to the Public Works Director
about the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:55 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 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:
(06-426) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees
Association, and Executive Management Group.
(06-427) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Zornes V. City of Alameda et al.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on
the status of negotiations with Alameda City Employees Association,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and
Confidential Employees Association and no action was taken;
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council received a
briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction on settlement of
this matter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,20,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- - -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-050) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC
and HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC
Meeting held on August 24, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-051) Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that
applicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at
Bayport.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether income is verified
immediately when applications are submitted, to which the
Development Services Manager responded income is verified at a
later time.
The Development Services Director continued the presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired how many income tax years are
verified.
The Development Services Director responded that Alameda
Development Corporation (ADC) did the preliminary background work;
stated ADC received three years of income tax information prior to
2005; 2005 income tax information was not available; ADC received
incomplete information because only pay stubs were received; income
tax information was not received showing all income sources for the
entire household; ADC found outside employment from the Peralta
Community College District; only the primary employment source was
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,21,"provided.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from
the primary job, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures
show approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired
whether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
W-2's have not been received from the Peralta Community College
District; $2,900 is an estimate.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for
actual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Commissioner Daysog's inquiry regarding the income
threshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager
stated the income threshold is $83,800.
Chair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in
the application package.
The Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient
information was available to determine that the Rutledge's income
was over the threshold; the Rutledge's only provided information
regarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City
inquired whether the Rutledge's wished to submit additional
information; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005
income tax returns, and W-2's would be requested if the
determination process were starting now.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security
Administration overtime communication occurred.
The Development Services Director responded the Rutledge's wanted
to dispense with any overtime in order to qualify stated the City
requested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating
that no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the
City determined that overtime could occur.
Commissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the
first group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that
an evaluation would not be made initially.
The Development Services Director responded all applicants are
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,22,"evaluated; ADC sends a letter stating what is needed from the
applicants, such as W-2's checking account information, etc.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an applicant's status is
checked and re-evaluated at the end of the process, to which the
Development Services Director responded the bank would re-evaluate
the status.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the entire process could take
six months.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the process includes workshops.
Commissioner deHaan stated an applicant's status could change
within six months; inquired whether applicants are informed that
wages should include overtime.
The Development Services Director responded the application
requests gross earnings ; stated overtime is a calculation of gross
earnings.
Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : M. Daniele Adams, Social Security
Administration Isha Brown, Alameda; Jesusita Rutledge, Appellant
Duane Rutledge, Appellant; Hannah Israel, Appellant's dependant
and Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Belinda Racklin, Alameda
Development Corporation.
There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates all speaker comments; the
Rutledge's acted in good faith throughout the application process;
rules need to be followed; rules become arbitrary without
consistency; overtime rules are applied in court every day; the
Rutledge's were given an opportunity to have the employer [Social
Security Administration] provide information stating that overtime
would not be allowed; said information was not received.
Commissioner Daysog concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the income
methodology was fair; ADC's and City staff's job is to find
information; the Rutledge's income exceeds the maximum threshold
for a family of four; the City needs to be fair to other families
going through the processi urged the Rutledge's to stick with the
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,23,"City throughout the next building phases.
Commissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide
information on any status change, which includes a change in the
family size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as
clear as the testimony tonight she would have no problem
dismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided
a letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta
College income is more problematic; documentation would need to be
provided from the College.
Commissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge
would teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep
in mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application
clearly indicates what the income should include.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on
the 2006 income.
The Development Services Director responded verification was to be
provided to the ADC by December twelve-month income was then
projected.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve-month window was
projected from the time of the application.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative
earnings are projected forward twelve months after the application
is complete and an earning pattern is reviewed.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December
2006 income was used for evaluation purposes.
The Development Services Director responded income was to cover
March 2006 to March 2007.
Commissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter
since it is now September an accurate income could be projected if
the Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would
occur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr.
Rutledge is on sabbatical figures could be reviewed to see if the
income falls within the window.
Commissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at
Alameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work
with a process that is fair.
Commissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important a
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,24,"paper trail is needed for the file.
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's had ample time to provide
documentation.
Chair Johnson stated the Rutledge's could continue to find ways to
change circumstances in order to qualify.
The Development Services Director stated the policy would need to
be changed if applicants were allowed to change working status to
become eligible.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another home selection would
occur, to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired when validation would be initiated for
the next draw.
The Development Services Director responded as soon as the
placement is complete for the current homes.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the application process
allows applicants to provide evidence of a change in status during
the evaluation period, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated individuals have no control over
furloughs and overtime cuts; the current process is valid and
allows people to appeal; verification is missing from the Social
Security Administration and Peralta Community College District.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the overtime calculation was used to
disqualify the Rutledge's; now opportunities are not available to
make half of the excess income.
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's would be eligible for the
next housing program because the application would be different
based upon adding a fifth person to the household.
Chair Johnson stated allowing individuals to continually change
information on the application is unfair to other applicants;
applicants could tailor information to meet the qualifications
The Development Services Director stated the Rutledge's income was
reviewed for a five-member family and the income was still slightly
above the threshold.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
5
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,25,"Legal Counsel stated the overtime issue is relevant and the
testimony is very good for the record; the past standard allowed a
written letter from someone in authority stating there would be no
overtime ; an applicant taking a sabbatical has never been accepted
in order to disallow income; she is not sure whether a sabbatical
would resolve the issue.
Chair Johnson stated taking a sabbatical would be a voluntary act.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the snapshot covers the
period from March 2006 to March 2007, to which the Development
Services Director responded the snapshot covers a projection moving
forward to March 2007.
Commissioner Gilmore stated January 2006 through March 2006 was
used to project the Peralta College income.
Chair Johnson clarified that January 2006 through March 2006 was
used to project the Peralta College income from March 2006 to March
2007; inquired whether fall and winter Peralta College income was
not assumed.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
stated Mr. Rutledge would be obligated to advise the City if he
were going to teach.
Commissioner Daysog stated Mr. Rutledge had every expectation to
teach if enough students enrolled; reasonable assumptions were made
from the best available information.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired when the evaluation
period for the next phase of houses would take place, to which the
Development Services Director responded the evaluation is going on
now.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Rutledge's could be placed
in the next evaluation process.
Chair Johnson responded other applicants have been disqualified and
have not been put back into the process.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioner Daysog and Chair Johnson - 2. Noes:
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, and Matarrese - 3.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
6
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,26,"Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of allowing the Rutledge's to
attempt to provide documentation regarding Social Security
employment status and to have staff perform an evaluation based
upon projected income from March 2006 to March 2007 to determine
whether or not the Rutledge's fit into the income category for a
five-person household.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Social Security
Administration income would be frozen if there were no more
overtime.
Commissioner Gilmore responded the income would be for overtime
earned up until September 30, 2006; overtime would be zero from
October 1 though March if the Social Security Administration]
letter were submitted.
Chair Johnson inquired what happens if a letter is not received, to
which Commissioner Gilmore responded the Rutledge's would not
qualify.
Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added to the motion
requesting documentation on the added dependent; inquired whether
the documentation is on record and validated.
The Housing Development Manager responded the dependent has been
accepted.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants the dependent validated
and the Social Security [letter regarding overtime) validated by
the [Social Security] Finance Director.
Commissioner Gilmore suggested that the requirement be that the
letter comes from someone in authority.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the language state ""the appropriate
person"" and staff could get the information from said appropriate
person.
Legal Counsel stated real information is being requested; Peralta
College income needs to be counted for the fall and into 2007;
staff does not have said information.
Chair Johnson requested that the motion include that the Rutledge's
provide all necessary documentation to provide staff with actual
information.
Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added into the motion
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
7
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,27,"that all pay increases be projected also.
The Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the
applicant to submit the information.
Chair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
The Executive Director requested clarification about the request
for verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the
dependent as a family member.
Chair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue
Service.
The Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does
not have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family
unit.
Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge's
are required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at
the Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime
from October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all
reportable income from Peralta College and any other source be
factored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by
September 30, 2006.
Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that
motion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee
status changes and there is an increase.
Commissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to
require the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime
policy and [overtime] percentage projection.
Chair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or
is not [overtime] income.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a
letter indicating that there would be no overtime.
The Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve
the appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations.
Commissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established;
information is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,28,"Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's were given ample time to
make the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the
CIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters
from non-decision makers. encouraged Commissioners to reconsider
and approve the staff recommendation
Commissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the
Rutledge's do not provide documentation from a person in authority
at the Social Security Administration.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner Daysog - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
9
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf