body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 16, 2008- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(08-384) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Conditional Approval
[paragraph no. 08-398 would be heard before the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of the July 14, 2008, Planning Board Approval
[paragraph no. 08-399].
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(08-385) Proclamation honoring Bananas for thirty-five years of
service.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judy Kriege
from Bananas.
Ms. Kriege thanked Council for the proclamation; stated serving the
community is an honor; Bananas is looking forward to many years of
service to the community.
(08-386) Proclamation declaring September 21 through 27 as Fall
Prevention Awareness Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Jackie Krause
from Mastick Senior Center.
Ms. Krause submitted a flyer and thanked Council for providing
Mastick Senior Center to the community stated the Annual Open
house event will be held on Sunday, September 21 between 1:00 p.m.
and 4:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the age requirement for
participating at the Mastick Senior Center.
Ms. Krause responded fifty and older; stated the oldest member is
ninety-nine years old, lives in Oakland, walks five blocks, and
takes two buses to volunteer at the Center two days per week.
(08-387) Mayor Johnson announced that there would be a Community
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,2,"Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) meeting at the ""O"" Club at
Alameda Point on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to
8:30 p.m.
(08-388) - Presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Façade
Grant Program.
The Development Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired about funding levels.
The Development Coordinator responded funding levels have been
approximately the same amount for the last two years; stated tax
increment funding is used.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether funding levels are adequate.
The Development Coordinator responded funds are running low; stated
there is a waiting list for funding.
Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , stated
WABA supports the grant funding the grant funding brought Park
Street and Webster Street together Pappo's windows were reused at
the Fireside Lounge.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) thanked
Council for the façade grant program; stated that the funding
process is easier than in the past.
(08-389) The Interim Finance Director assured Council and the
community that the American International Group (AIG) marketing
activity has not affected the City's portfolio; stated the City has
two guaranteed investment Contracts; one Contract invests reserve
funds for redevelopment and one Contract invests reserve funds for
the Community Facilities District Bond; the City has been assured
by the City's portfolio managers that the federal government has
decided to back AIG.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to watch CalPERS policies and
investments because the City has retirement investments with
CalPERS; the City would pay more money if CalPERS investments do
not perform.
The Interim Finance Director stated CalPERS has altered its
investment strategy because a significant amount of their portfolio
was in real estate investment trusts and inter-City urban
development projects which were not performing; an Off Agenda
Report can be provided with a complete analysis CalPERS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,3,"investments; cost recovery changes if the portfolio does not
perform and the City is not able to have investment earnings to
help offset the costs.
Mayor Johnson stated the City picks up the tab if actuarial
assumptions are off; requested that the matter be placed on a
future agenda so the public understands the situation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
City Manager to enter into MOU [paragraph no. 08-394] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*08-390) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meetings held on August 19, 2008; the Special Joint City Council
and Public Utilities Board Meeting, the Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on
September 2, 2008; and the Special City Council Meetings held on
September 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008. Approved.
(*08-391) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,561,927.16
(*08-392) Recommendation to authorize execution of a Grant of
Easement to Pacific Gas & Electric for the Webster Street gas line
relocation. Accepted.
(*08-393) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Webster Street joint trench and utility
relocation project, No. P.W. 08-08-23. Accepted.
(08-394) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter
into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency for the implementation of the Webster
Street SMART Corridor Management Project in the amount of
$1, 100,000, and to execute all necessary documents to implement the
Project.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the project sounds very exciting; requested a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,4,"short synopsis on what is involved and what the $1. 1 million would
cover.
The Supervising Civil Engineer stated the project would provide
capacity enhancements without widening a street or adding more
lanes; the main purpose of the project is to provide traffic signal
priority, which offers transit buses extra green time; all Webster
Street bus stops would have signs to alert riders when the next bus
would arrive; signal coordination is another asset of the project;
a new signal would be added at the Webster Street and Pacific
Avenue intersection; signal pre-emption would be added along the
Webster Street corridor for emergency response vehicles; the
project would have Intelligent Transportation System elements;
Microwave Vehicle Detection Systems would be added along the
Webster Street corridor to collect real time traffic speed, volume,
and lane occupancy data; cameras would be installed at key
locations in order to monitor traffic.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the project would be funded through
grants and would not impact the General Fund.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*08-395) Resolution No. 14265, ""Supporting Measure WW, the
Extension of the Regional Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks
Bond. "" Adopted.
(*08-396) Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the Grand
Marina Village Master Plan to adjust lot lines for five parcels in
the development and adjust the boundaries of open space and a park
within the development; and
(*08-396A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan
Amendment PLN08-0181 Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina
Village Master Plan. Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-397) Resolution No. 14266 ""Reappointing Lamont Carter as a
Member of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,5,"(08-398) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's Conditional Approval of a Major Design Review for an
addition and a remodel that includes raising a single-family
structure and constructing a detached two-story dwelling unit at
3327 Fernside Boulevard, within the R-2, Two-Family Residential
Zoning District; and
( 08-398A) Resolution No. 14267, ""Denying an Appeal and Upholding
the Planning Board Decision Conditionally Approving Major Design
Review DR07-0086 For the Structural Expansion of a Single-Family
Dwelling and the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit at 3327
Fernside Boulevard. Adopted.
The Planning Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Applicant would be
limited to a thirty-foot height with the new condition, to which
the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed condition is the same
condition that the Planning Board rejected.
The Planning Manager responded the proposed condition is a little
different because a lower height maximum would be allowed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board saw the proposed
condition, to which the Planning Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Applicant would be able
to increase the height by no more than one foot, stay within the
thirty-foot height limit, and rework the back of the house, to
which the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board discussed
the concept of reworking the back of the house but did not think it
was necessary, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is confused why a new condition would
be added at this point.
The Planning Manager stated the new condition allows the Applicant
to increase the height of the building, make it architecturally
compatible, and stay within the guidelines.
Mayor Johnson inquired how long the project has been going on.
The Planning Manager responded the application went before the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,6,"Planning Board in June.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant is requesting added
height.
The Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the added
height would not exceed the height limit for the property's zoning
district.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the compromise has been discussed
with the Applicant, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
negative.
Mayor Johnson stated the process is odd.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the back of the house has an addition
from some prior lifetime and is not architecturally significant;
the [back of the] house faces the estuary and cannot be seen from
the street; that she is trying to understand what is the motivation
in requiring the condition.
The Planning Manager stated the condition would remain consistent
with the Planning Board recommendation to achieve a condition that
is architecturally compatible with the existing house.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter went back to the Planning
Board recently.
The Planning Manager responded that the matter went to the Planning
Board in June for Design Review and went to the Planning Board
earlier in the year when variances were requested.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the Planning Board stipulated that the
structure should not exceed thirty-feet in height regardless of any
architectural detail; staff indicated an architectural detail would
exceed the thirty-foot height by nine inches a condition is
proposed to bring the height back under thirty feet which is in
conformance with what the Planning Board gave as a general
condition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Applicant would still
need to clip the top of the house.
The Planning Manager responded the house would need to be clipped
by approximately nine inches.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the reason for raising the
building.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,7,"The Planning Manager responded the Applicant wants to provide
height in the garage area.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Appeal) : Patricia Baer, Alameda; Elizabeth
Krase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; Richard
W. Rutter, AAPS; Nancy Hird, Alameda: Christopher Buckley, AAPS;
Grinne Lambden, AAPS.
(Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : JoAnne Chandler, Alameda: Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Kexis Brownson; Alameda; Donna Talbot, Applicant
(submitted handout) i James Rauk, Applicant.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicants are not asking for
any variances and are not exceeding the thirty-foot height limit,
to which the Applicant responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant was told that the
Guidelines for Residential Design supercedes the Alameda Municipal
Code.
The Applicant responded that a Planner told her that the Guidelines
trump the Code.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the thirty-foot height limit
is the only Planning Board condition, to which the Applicant
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether tonight's recommendation is
for the thirty-foot height limit, the one-foot height increase, and
modifications to the back of the house, to which the Applicant
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff's recommendation is
twelve inches and the Planning Board's recommendation is fifteen
inches, to which the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.
The Applicant questioned the three-inch change.
The Planning Manager stated the three inches is a compromise.
Mayor Johnson inquired who worked out the compromise, to which the
Planning Manager responded staff.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,8,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether AAPS had any input on the
compromise, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether raising [the house]
fifteen inches and making adjustments to roof level would still be
under thirty feet, to which the Applicant responded the peak would
be thirty feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed massing and appearance
of the sides of the house are substantially larger. inquired how
the matter was interpreted as meeting the characteristics of a
craftsman style house; stated the intent of the guidance is not to
replicate a house but to have certain attributes that make the
house recognizable.
The Planning Manager stated staff recommends lowering the height
where the windows meet the top plate and incorporating features,
such as a dormer over the windows, to get craftsman architectural
features.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the elevation is obscured
by a large house.
The Planning Manager responded the opposite side has a more public
view of the side of the house.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the driveway side has a greater
distance between houses; inquired whether the elevations are the
same for both sides, to which the Planning Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board rejected the condition
regarding changes to the side; inquired what is the relationship
between the Guidelines and the Code.
The Planning Manager responded the Guidelines are a resource that
the staff and public can use when evaluating a project for
compatibility with a neighborhood or existing structure.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Department needs to have a
clear understanding of the Guidelines; stating that the Guidelines
trump the Code is wrong.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board and Applicants came
to an agreement on what the Code and Guidelines require; the
Planning Board agreed to go with the design but wanted to observe
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,9,"the thirty-foot height limit she is concerned that staff made
changes after the fact and did not involve Applicant input.
Mr. Buckley stated that the Guide to Residential Design states : ""In
order for a design review application to be approved, finding must
be made that the project conforms to the Guide to Residential
Design.'
Councilmember Matarrese stated the elevation is less busy than what
would be for the right side elevation.
Councilmember deHaan stated the driveway is a concerning factor ;
old architecture allowed driveways slops down into the basement;
level driveways have a nicer feel.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff advised the Applicant
that they could raise the building twelve inches with a thirty feet
limit in height, to which the Applicant responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Applicant questioned what
happened to the extra three inches.
The Planning Manager stated the three inches are a compromise.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is trying to get to the point of
blending form and function; inquired whether the twelve inches
would allow sufficient room for handicap accessibility.
The Planning Manager responded in the affirmative stated the
garage roof layer would be raised to the height the Applicant would
need; adjustments would be made to the peak of the roof.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she does not understand what is so bad
about raising the structure by fifteen inches.
The Planning Manager stated that staff developed a compromise
between what was originally proposed which is not raising the
building height at all and what the Planning Board approved, which
is not allowing a building more than thirty feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff recommends changing the slope
of the roof.
The Planning Manager responded the Applicant would need to change
the upper slope to either achieve what staff recommends or what the
Planning Board approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,10,"Mayor Johnson stated that the project was recommended to go to the
Historical Advisory Board in error; the Applicants were ready to
come to Council a month ago; an error was made in the noticing
requirements; the project needs to move along.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of upholding the Planning Board
decision and overturning the appeal.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated that the compromise is not
between raising the building to be in conformance with the Code but
is about trying to balance the form and necessity of the function
of the building for the Applicant.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council would be denying the
appeal and approving the Planning Board recommendation with the
only condition that the building not exceed thirty feet, to which
Councilmember deHaan and Vice Mayor Tam responded in the
affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the project has had a litany of
fumbles; requested that a report be provided outlining preventative
and corrective actions to prevent further occurrences, including
communicating with applicants; the report should include
information on the use of the Guide to Residential Design versus
the Municipal Code, the place for review by the HAB, and
notification process stated this is not the first time that the
notification issue has come up; he would like the report soon so
that Council should hear the matter within a month so that the same
mistakes are not made again.
Mayor Johnson stated the language in the section of the Guidelines
referenced by Mr. Buckley creates ambiguity; requested that the
Design Review Guidelines be brought back to Council for
clarification
The City Manager stated a resolution would be provided to the City
Clerk to ensure that Council action is clearly recorded.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates staff's efforts
to move the project forward; staff reached a compromise and there
was no communication with the property owner regarding the
compromise; property owners need to be involved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,11,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the requested report should include
some analysis of the root cause; he wants to be convinced that the
correction matches the cause; delays cost the Applicant and City
money.
Mayor Johnson stated that delays cost staff time also.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council meeting at 10:11 p.m.
***
(08-399) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the July 14,
2008, Planning Board Approval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090,
Allowing the Reconstruction of Building 1000, located in the
Alameda Towne Centre at 2230 South Shore Center; and
(08-399A) Resolution No. 14268, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Approval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090, Allowing the
Reconstruction of Building 1000, Located in the Alameda Towne
Centre, at 2230 South Shore Center. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what type of process Orchard Supply
Hardware (OSH) would have to go through if they decided to take the
building ""as is""; further inquired how long the process would take.
The Supervising Planner responded OSH would need to get a business
license; a permit would be needed if OSH wanted a sign; stated the
process could be completed in a morning.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether OSH could go in as a matter
of course if exterior changes were not being proposed.
The Supervising Planner responded a hardware store is a permitted
use in the zoning district stated there would be no discretionary
entitlement.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City has the legal
right to exclude OSH from the permitted use within the Center, to
which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City could prohibit
another coffee shop in the Center if other coffee shop merchants
said no.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the tenant does
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,12,"not need to get permission if the use is permitted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents ( In favor of Appeal) : David Giovannoli, Pagono's
Hardware; Claire Yeaton-Risley, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda;
Patty Jacobs, Greater Alameda Business Association; Richard
Burgess, Alameda; Alan Ryan, Economic Development Corporation;
Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; David Kirwin,
Alameda; Robb Ratto, Alameda; Patricia Baer, Alameda; Reid
Wetherill, Alameda; Iris Watson, Alameda; Arthur Lipow, Alameda;
Kate Eckhaus, Alameda; Richard Eckhaus, Alameda; Barbara Mooney,
Alameda; Nick Petrulakis, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda;
Philip Jaber, Encinal Hardware; Richard Biggar, Alameda;
Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Allan Ryan, Alameda; Robert
Mananquil, Trader Joe's; Peter Schamoni, Alameda Realty Center;
James Robinson, Fit Lite by 24 Hour Fitness; David Estep, Massage
Envy; Steve Hill, Orchard Supply Hardware; Mike Corbit, Harsch
Development; Randy Kyte, Harsch Development.
Neutral Bill Smith, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the staff report mentions that there is
an existing Planned Development Agreement (PDA) that modifies the
Alameda Municipal Code by requiring a PDA for an expansion over 5%
of the total shopping center area; the analysis shows there would
still be approximately 2% of the total square footage if the garden
center is included in the calculation; inquired whether said
analysis is correct, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is having trouble understanding what
is considered in the square footage and what is not.
The Supervising Planner stated the [garden] floor area is not part
of the building but would have merchandise for sale; additional
parking would not be required if an existing business wanted to add
an unenclosed garden area; additional parking might be required if
the building site was increased; adding square footage to the
shopping center would not trigger a planned development amendment.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the existing planned development amendment is
more stringent; inquired whether the higher square footage
[including garden area] falls under the 5% trigger in the existing
planned development amendment, to which the Supervising Planner
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,13,"responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated technical aspects are not the issue
tonight ; the issue is what Alamedan's want; every EDC leakage study
contained a paragraph stating that existing retailers would not be
affected; urbanists advise that the City should look at retail
nodes i Alameda has fourteen retail nodes which are extremely
important the businesses discussed tonight are anchors; a major
Alameda asset [nodes could collapse if anchors disappear i that he
is concerned with the fabric of Alameda; retail mix needs to be
reviewed and should go to the EDC for review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the retail leakage analysis was done
through the EDC.
The Supervising Planner responded the Alameda Landing project was
thoroughly vetted through a wide variety of Boards and Commissions.
Mayor Johnson stated that she remembers a series of EDC meetings
held throughout the community; inquired whether the meetings were
part of the retail analysis, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated there were no less that four different
retail analyses; all of the analyses said the same thing.
***
(08-400 ) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
***
Councilmember Matarrese stated a resolution adopted by the Planning
Board in 2003 required the applicant to submit a plan for a Planned
Development Amendment and Major Design Review prior to the issuance
of building permits for the Phase that includes the present car
wash site, Building 1800, Building 1000, and subsequent phases ;
inquired how said resolution impacts tonight's discussion.
The Supervising Planner responded the Applicant was required to
come back with a different design for the shoreline area and gas
station location; the Planning Board did not want the 2003 Building
1000 built until a new Planned Development Amendment addressed the
shoreline area; the Applicant complied in 2005 and currently is
going through Planning Board hearings the 2003 Building 1000 is
not the same building being discussed tonight the 2003 building
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,14,"was much larger and in a different location.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was on the Planning Board at
that time; that she remembers the discussion regarding the
shoreline site and wanting to put restaurants at the former movie
theatre site; Page 14, paragraph 22 states that ""The project may
include one store up to 90,000 square feet in floor area and two
stores each up of up to 60,000 square feet. Any larger store shall
require a Planned Development Amendment. Additions or modifications
of less than 5% in overall center area may be approved by
Administrative Design Review""; she has been a customer of all
retail establishments discussed tonight ; she understand the
concerns; one speaker brought up the cigarette store on Park
Street; the City was sued and had to pay the rent for several years
until tenants rented the site; she needs to balance the
consideration of potentially being sued by the shopping center and
the precarious budget; she wants Alameda to be known as a City that
lives up to agreements.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City's policies reflect the concern and
desire to make sure that small businesses survive; the City has
allocated money to support the Park Street Business Association,
West Alameda Business Association, and Greater Alameda Business
Association; a lot of money is spent on advertising, landscape and
lighting, and façade grants; the City cannot dictate the tenant at
a particular site; the City has to abide by established agreements
with Alameda Towne Center there is not a lot of choice in
determining tenants at Alameda Towne Centre.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution [upholding the
Planning Board's decision].
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the reality is that
OSH could take the building as is and open in one month because OSH
is a permitted use.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Towne Centre is part of
Alameda; the developer would advise the City of an anticipated
lawsuit; inquired whether buncilmember Gilmore heard anything on
the issue.
Councilmember Gilmore responded in the negative; stated she would
be remise if she did not consider the possibility of a lawsuit.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City put caveats into the Alameda
Landing PDA; a decision should be postponed for further discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,15,"Councilmember Gilmore stated Council discussed the type of retail
desired for the Bridgeside Shopping Center the City did not get
the upscale retail desired; the developer showed her pages of
failed attempts to get upscale tenants; incentives can be provided,
but the free market allows a business to calculate whether money
can be made in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she met with the Appellants and Alameda
Towne Centre representatives; OSH is not her first choice. Alameda
Towne Centre representatives tried to get other tenants, including
electronic retailers; the City is not the property owner and cannot
select the tenants; the City is very supportive of small businesses
and has invested a lot of money in streetscapes, Theater
renovation, and façade grants South Shore continued to decline
over the last forty-five years the City cannot buy or take over
the lease; small businesses can compete.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City has a certain amount of
control over what comes into the business districts; the EDC and
Planning Board need to review whether permitted uses should be
adjusted because times have changed; the 2003 Planning Board
resolution is a complex document and sets the context for what
would happen when the project came forward; OSH is a permitted use
and the project should be approved.
Mayor Johnson stated the City of Vallejo was fighting over what
should go into the City; retailers decided to relocate across the
border of Vallejo. Alameda does not have enough sales and property
tax revenue ; Measure P is being placed on the ballot reluctantly;
the voters will decide whether to support Measure P or have very
significant cuts made to the City budget.
Councilmember deHaan stated Target had an exclusive agreement twice
with Alameda Towne Center, Enterprise Landing, and Alameda Landing;
Target is a good fit at Alameda Landing OSH could be a better fit
at Alameda Landing; putting OSH in the center of the City would
create a major impact.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember deHaan - 1.
(08-401) Public Hearing to consider an Ordinance Amending Various
Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I
(Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX Development
Regulations) to Prohibit Single Retail Stores Larger than 90,000
Square Feet in Size that Include More Than Ten-Percent Sales Floor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,16,"Area Devoted to Non-taxable Merchandise. Introduced.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the proposed ordinance would
affect the existing Development Agreements.
The Planning Services Manager responded one Development Agreement
is with Harbor Bay Business Park and protects changes in zoning
requirements; the other Development Agreement is with Alameda
Landing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Bridgeside Shopping Center,
the Northern Waterfront, and Alameda Point would be affected by the
proposed ordinance.
The Planning Services Manager responded all areas would be subject
to the proposed ordinance; stated MX zoning would require Master
Plans to be developed; Master Plans are mini ordinances for an
area.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on where the proposed
ordinance would apply.
The Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would
apply to everywhere in the City with the exception of the area
covered by the Alameda Landing Development Agreement and Harbor Bay
Development Agreement.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of Ordinance) : Mike Henneberry, UFCW Local 5;
John Nunes, UFCW Local 5; David Kirwin, Alameda; Phil Tucker,
California Healthy Communities Network; Mark Wolfe, California
Healthy Communities Network; Karen Bey, Alameda; Jon Spangler,
Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan stated the second paragraph on Page 2 of the
staff report states that ""Existing projects with approved
Development Agreements that specifically limit the City's ability
to impose new regulations, such as Alameda Landing and Harbor Bay
Business Park, may be exempt from the prohibition""; inquired why
""may be"" is used.
The City Attorney responded the prohibition would depend on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,17,"provisions within the relevant Development Agreement; stated the
Development Agreement would need to be reviewed; the Alameda
Landing and Harbor Island Associates Development Agreements are
exempt from the proposed ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated ""may be"" should be changed to ""are.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the proposed ban went before the
Planning Board and EDC ; inquired what was the recommendation.
The Planning Services Manager responded the immediate reaction was
that there is already a Use Permit process that allows the City to
turn down stores that do not work and also provides the flexibility
to approve stores that work; the City does not want to send the
message that the City is anti-business by adopting flat out
prohibitions; the Planning Board raised a couple questions
regarding administrative management.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board and EDC agreed that
the community does not want a Walmart or a super center that she
is troubled that neither the Planning Board or EDC thought that
prohibition was not the best tool.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Planning Board did not
think the matter is a planning issue but more of an economic issue;
that he appreciates the focus on economics; there was consensus
that some type of prohibition is needed but sending the wrong
message is a concern; a Use Permit is needed for a building that is
greater than 30,000 square feet; Council has the benefit of
Planning Board and EDC discussions.
Mayor Johnson stated the measure is reasonable and is not too
restrictive or overly broad; the proposed ordinance does a good job
of accomplishing the goal with the combination of square footage
and non-taxable.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports the proposed
ordinance; leakage studies show that there is room for only one
more grocery store; the Del Monte project will take care of that
need; a grocery store threshold is approximately 160,000 square
feet; a Walmart is approximately 210,000 square feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the status of the Del Monte project.
The Planning Services Manager responded shell improvements are
being made; stated a large format retail Use Permit will be needed
before occupancy if there is over 30,000 square feet of retail; one
to two years of structural work is needed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,18,"Vice Mayor Tam stated the proposed ordinance is a better tool than
using a Major Design Review and is consistent with the City's
policy to protect small businesses; the EDC minutes are very
precise; the EDC clearly understands the principle of using zoning
to ensure that there are businesses that promote good labor
practices; the EDC recognizes the other principles that go with the
economic and community impact of having a super store in Alameda;
the EDC would like to see a more nuance ordinance; it was not clear
what the nuance tool would look like.
Vice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the feasibility of
having the EDC and Planning Board review Use Permits for 30,000
square feet or more.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(08-402) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy efficiency.
(08-403)
Robb Ratto, Alameda, stated that he questions a procedure
that allows people with no standing to appeal a Planning Board
decision on a residential matter; inquired whether there is any way
to limit who can appeal a residential Planning Board decision.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(08-404) Consideration of Resolution No. 14269, ""Amending
Resolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of Business of City of
Alameda City Council Meeting. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson stated that having a section on the agenda for City
Manager staff communications would be a good idea; the public would
be updated on significant issues.
Councilmember Matarrese stated placement of the item could be
adjusted; the item should be before the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Gilmore suggested that the item be placed before or
after the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam stated placement would depend upon the subject.
Mayor Johnson stated the community needs to be kept informed of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,19,"significant items; most meetings would not have City Manager
reports.
The City Manager suggested that the item be placed before regular
agenda items.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution, with
moving City Manager Communications before Agenda items.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(08-405 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission and Youth Advisory Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Harry Dahlberg and Michael J. Schmitz for
reappointment to the Economic Development Commission and continued
nominations for remaining vacancies; nominated Maggie Mei for
appointment to the Youth Commission; continued nominations for
remaining vacancies.
(08-406) - Councilmember deHaan stated there would be a review of
the conceptual portion for the Alameda Point project September 19,
2008; he was hoping that the matter would come back to Council.
The Assistant City Manager stated many meetings have been held with
committees; a joint meeting is being scheduled with the
Transportation Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority for acceptance of the Master Plan prior to November.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the matter would be reviewed
by anyone else.
The Assistant City Manager responded the matter would be going to
the Recreation and Park Commission, Planning Board, etc.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 1:05 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,20,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 16, 2008- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(08-382 - ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957) ; Title:
City Manager.
(08-383) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation
(54956.9 i Name of case Collins V. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council
and the City Manager met for a periodic performance review; no
action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a
briefing from Legal Counsel regarding the status of litigation and
potential settlement discussions and gave direction to Legal
Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:55 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 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-16,21,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - 7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
Tam, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner 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. . ]
(*08-48) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and ledevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meetings held on August 19, 2008; and Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners Meeting of September 2, 2008. Approved.
(*08-49) - Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute an Amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris
& Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for
the final phase of the Bayport Project by adding additional budget
authority in an amount not to exceed $198,000 (of which $104,000
will be reimbursed by the homebuilder for In-Tract Plan Review and
Inspection) . Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:07 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
September 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf