body,date,page,text,path
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER - 5, 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(10-466) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph
no. 10-467], the joint meeting reports on the status of America's Cup [paragraph no.
10-488 CC/ARRA/10-69 CIC] and the report on the meeting with Supervisor Lai-Bitker
[paragraph no. 10-468 would be addressed first.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(10-467) Resolution No. 14492, ""Appointing Fayleen Allen as a Member of the Housing
Commission (Tenant Seat)."" Adopted; and
(10-467A) Resolution No. 14493, ""Appointing Nancy Lewis as a Member of the Library
Board.' Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Lewis.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:24 p.m.
*
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-468) Mayor's Report on Meeting with Supervisor Lai-Bitker Regarding County EMS
Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated the meeting was very positive; the process has two tracks: one is
the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process and the other is the City's
independent process; the LAFCO process would involve Alameda joining the EMS
District; staff has indicated a separate contract issue is very close to being completed;
over the years, the City and County have had discussions regarding payments due; the
County has made a very reasonable proposal that would not involve transfer of City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,2,"money to the County; direction needs to be given to proceed with finalizing the contract
and going through the LAFCO process for joining the EMS District; Alameda is the only
City within the County, including unincorporated areas, that is not part of the EMS
District; the County is responsible for providing trauma care.
Supervisor Lai-Bitker thanked the Mayor and Interim City Manager for spending time to
discuss the matter; stated the meeting was very productive and positive; that she hopes
the timeframe will be met; she took the liberty to contact LAFCO; there is not enough
time for the matter to come before [LAFCO] at the November meeting because an
application takes sixty days to file; the next [LAFCO] meeting is January 13, 2011.
Mayor Johnson stated precise details were not discussed; staff can bring the matter
back for a public hearing if Council is comfortable with giving direction to move forward
with the parallel process.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked everyone for getting together on the very important
issue; moved approval of directing staff to move forward with working on the contract
and LAFCO process and come back to Council with an outline of the process, including
a timeline of the two tracks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam inquired whether Council would be directing
staff to go forward with the annexation and go through the LAFCO process to become
part of the EMS District, finalize the contract, and come back with a timeline at the next
Council meeting.
Councilmember Gilmore clarified that the motion is to direct staff to provide a process
outline that includes a timeline; stated that she does not know the steps.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether requesting an outline and timeline would assume
that the City would be going through the process.
Councilmember Gilmore responded that Council would be providing staff direction to go
down a path to finalize the contract with the County, provide an outline of the two
processes that would need to be completed, and bring the matter back to Council so
that Council can see opportunities for public comment and ensure that the City will meet
timelines.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether meeting the timeline before January 2011 would
be likelihood.
Mayor Johnson responded the City cannot get on the LAFCO agenda until January;
stated the County's deadline for the City can be met.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,3,"Councilmember Matarrese stated direction is to negotiate a contract; public hearings
would then occur; the contract could be altered.
The Interim City Manager stated the contract has basically been finished; some
tweaking might need to be done; appropriation would require Council action; that she
could come back with a critical path.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether or not the contract would be brought back at
the next meeting.
The Interim City Manager responded the contract would not come back at the next
meeting; stated that she is not sure of the critical path for annexation; information is
missing.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the LAFCO processes would inform future
financial encumbrances of the contract.
The Interim City Manager responded that she assumes Council wants to move forward
[with the contract] based on expectation that the City would annex into the EMS District,
barring any Proposition 218 glitches and that the contract costs would go on the
property tax roles; stated the assessment for a single family residential property would
be $26.43 per year; a two to five unit residential assessment would be $63.92 per year;
a supermarket or restaurant assessment would be $105 per year; a larger shopping
center assessment would be $184; the highest assessment would be $392 per year for
more than five units; the average assessment would be $42 per year.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated staff would come back with an outline of how the process
would work; more background is needed regarding how the fee would be established.
The Interim City Manager stated an Attorney General opinion noted that a vote would
not be needed; the issue needs to be researched.
Councilmember Tam stated the Hospital Board went through the LAFCO process to
form the Alameda Health Care District; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft can help provide
information on boundaries.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know how a tax can be assessed
without a vote; the issue needs to be tested against the Proposition 218 measuring
stick.
The Interim City Manager stated the issue is very important because the City would be
assessing and putting on a parcel tax.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated escalation would be part of the equation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,4,"The Interim City Manager stated escalation would be based on a land use category; the
City would pay more as it grows; the individual benefit unit is established every year.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10-469) Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Commission on Disability
Issues Commissioner Nielsen Tam.
Mr. Tam thanked Council for the proclamation; thanked staff for supporting the
Commission on Disability Issues; stated a tree planting ceremony will take place on
October 16th at Lincoln Park.
(10-470) Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2010, as Housing Authority Appreciation
Day for Seventy Years of Service to Lower Income Alameda Residents.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Housing Authority
Executive Director; Housing Authority Board Commissioner Torrey and Housing
Commissioner Arthur Kurrasch.
(10-471) Proclamation Recognizing October 3 through October 9, 2010 as Public Power
Week: Alameda Municipal Power Helps our Community in Powerful Ways.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Public Utilities Board Member
Peter Holmes.
(10-472) Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on Crown Beach
Sand Replacement.
Doug Siden President of the EBRPD Board and Diane Althoff, EBRPD, gave a Power
Point presentation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor 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.]
(*10-473) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on September 9, 2010 and
the Regular City Council Meeting Held on September 21, 2010. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,5,"(*10-474) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,963,240.25.
(*10-475) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for the Annual Fuel Delivery, No. P.W. 09-10-22, and Amend the Contract in the
Amount of $200,000, Including Contingencies, with Valley Oil Company for the Annual
Fuel Delivery Through December 31, 2010. Accepted.
(*10-476) Recommendation to Authorize Administrative Approval of Down Payment
Assistance Loans of up to $80,000. Accepted.
(*10-477) Ordinance No. 3021, ""Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone
Approximately .085 Acres Located at 709 Lincoln Avenue APN 073 041801400 from
CC-Community Commercial Zoning District, to R-5, General Residential Zoning
Designation.' Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-478) Presentation on Public Power Week and Energy Awareness Month Activities
for October.
The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources gave a Power
Point presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated compact fluorescent bulbs cannot go into the trash;
inquired whether staff is working on the matter.
The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources responded a
flyer informs customers how to property dispose compact fluorescent bulbs; stated
people can take the bulbs to Encinal Hardware and Pagano's Hardware for disposal.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue needs to be amped up; hazardous bulbs
end up in landfill.
The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources stated more
customer outreach could be done.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should have more drop off locations.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether drop offs could be done at City Hall.
Mayor Johnson responded batteries could be dropped off at City Hall.
The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources stated the
practice is to drop hazardous bulbs at Encinal Hardware and Pagano's Hardware.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether public outreach could be done in classrooms or
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,6,"have students could produce videos.
The Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources responded
said ideas are planned for the Green Awards campaign.
(10-479) Presentation on the City's Affordable Housing Development Pipeline.
The Interim City Manager and Housing Department Executive Director gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
[FISC] site, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded June, 2012.
Mayor Johnson stated the problem is that the units are deteriorating.
The Housing Department Executive Director continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated digging has been done at the site [1435 Webster
Street]; inquired whether tanks have been taken out.
The Housing Department Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated some
areas are still contaminated because areas were not accessible; areas need to be re-
dug and the soil has to be remediated; continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how many units are at the Coast Guard housing, to which
the Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 250 units.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether moving the Alameda Collaborative to the area
would be possible.
The Development Services Division Manager responded the 2009 Community Reuse
Plan amendment allows for 435 residential units to be developed at north housing;
stated 90 homeless units would be a subset of the 435 units.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the progress on obtaining insurance in case
contamination is found.
The Housing Department Executive Director responded the proposal submitted to the
Navy in 2007 includes insurance; stated progress has not been made because the City
has not heard back from the Navy.
Councilmember Tam inquired where the City is in terms of meeting allocation goals.
The Housing Department Executive Director responded that he would get back to
Council on the matter; stated the City is lacking between 50% to 80% for medium
income.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,7,"(10-480) The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the workers compensation
case, which was settled.
Councilmember Matarrese stated normally, workers compensation issues happen in
Closed Session; usually, an agreement is made by the policy board; proposed
agreements are brought to Council for a vote; inquired how the case in question is
different.
The City Attorney responded the case is very unusual; stated the injured employee filed
a claim; both sides agreed upon a medical examiner; the medical examiner submitted a
disability rating; the employee did not ask for anything else; the disability rating was not
disputed; Council has no discretion to refuse to grant the statutory compensation based
upon the agreed upon medical examiner's decision; the outcome would not have been
any different if the matter did not come to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the 31% [disability rating] is a discretionary number that either
side could dispute.
The City Attorney stated that she discussed the matter with Outside Counsel, Keith
Epstein; Mr. Epstein has been the City's workers compensation attorney for almost
twenty years; there is case law that if parties use an agreed upon medical examiner,
then parties have agreed to accept whatever the agreed upon medical examiner's
rating; it is not Mr. Epstein's practice to check the disability rating of the agreed upon
medical examiner with Council; that she would discuss changing the process if Council
wishes.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is sensitive to the statement that there is no
discretionary act.
The City Attorney stated dulling medical opinions might occur if both sides have their
own qualified medical examiner; discussions might take place regarding settlement and
an appropriate disability rating.
Mayor Johnson stated each side could put in a provision not to agree to accept the
recommended disability rating.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should have a say if financial discretion is
being turned over to an agreed upon medical examiner; Council should have agreed to
the process of accepting whatever the outcome would be before marching down said
road.
The City Attorney stated that she understands the confusion; suggested Mr. Epstein be
brought to the next Council meeting, or as soon as is practicable, if Council wants to
consider changing the process; Mr. Epstein could outline how the statutory workers
compensation system works.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,8,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the agreed medical examiner agreed upon,
to which the City Attorney responded probably within a month of filing the claim.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the agreed upon medical examiner was agreed upon
before the case came to Council on September 21st Consent Calendar, to which the
City Attorney concurred.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why the matter was scheduled for Council to
determine settlement authority if Council had no discretion.
The City Attorney responded that neither she nor the Risk Manager had been properly
advised by the City's third party administrator that the injured worker had an attorney
and that the matter had been scheduled for the judge's order on September 29th; the
matter was placed before Council because of the third party administrator's
recommendation to get Council's settlement authority; the matter is not before Council
tonight because the matter has already been dispositively ordered by the workers
compensation appeal judge; that she can provide Council and the community with an
Off Agenda report explaining how the workers compensation process works and/or can
request Mr. Epstein to make a presentation to Council, including what the process has
been for at least twenty years.
Councilmember Gilmore state mandatory settlement conferences are set weeks or
months in advance in most trial situations; inquired whether the same is true for workers
compensation.
The City Attorney responded that she cannot advise when settlement occurred; stated
information provided by the third party administrator was wrong; no one had the proper
information and she did not discover that the matter was scheduled for the workers
compensation appeals judge until last week.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired why Outside Counsel informed the judge that he had
no settlement authority if there was no discretion.
The City Attorney responded the proceeding before the Workers Compensation Appeal
Board is not like a civil trial in Superior Court; stated once parties have reached a
disability rating either through an agreed upon medical examiner or dulling medical
examiners, the case goes to the workers compensation appeals judge; at the
mandatory settlement conference, the judge typically asks if there is any settlement
authority; Mr. Epstein properly stated that he had no settlement authority; Mr. Epstein
could have requested that the matter go to trial, in which case the judge would have set
the trial, which is a one-day hearing before the same judge; the judge would have
closed discovery at the mandatory settlement conference, which means that no new
information could come in; the parties would be stuck with the agreed medical exam
conclusion; the judge would simply reiterate his order because there is no defense; the
injured employee would need to wait an extra ninety days to receive the statutory
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,9,"required compensation for the injury.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not concerned about the outcome; she is
glad that the employee has been taken care of; she is more concerned about the
process, Council discretion, and the appearance of having staff take discretion away
from Council; inquired whether there was a conversation between the City Attorney,
Risk Manager or any other staff regarding the determination as to whether or not to
bring the matter to Council in open or closed session.
The City Attorney responded there was discussion on the matter based upon the third
party administrator.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there was discussion as to whether or not to
bring the matter in closed session; stated most workers compensation issues are
brought to Council in closed session and Council likes to ask questions; by putting the
matter on the Consent Calendar, she assumes the City Attorney felt that Council would
not have any questions.
The City Attorney stated all needed information was in the staff report.
Councilmember Gilmore stated obviously not because two Councilmembers raised
questions regarding the issue; maybe the process broke down at the very beginning
when the decision was made not to bring the matter to Council in closed session.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City Attorney was not aware that a hearing
was already scheduled to occur after September 21st.
The City Attorney responded that she was not aware that the matter had already gone
to litigation and that a mandatory settlement conference through the Workers
Compensation Appeals Board was scheduled for September 29th.
In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she and the
Risk Manager thought that no attorney was involved and did not know that the matter
was scheduled to go before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, which means;
there would be no choice but for Council to approve the compensation payment set by
statute; if she knew that the matter was going before the Workers Compensation
Appeals Board judge on September 29th, she would not have bothered to bring the
matter to Council in open or closed session because is no discretion.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the matter should be reagendized.
The City Attorney stated that she could have Mr. Epstein go over the issue in detail, if
Council wants the matter reagendized.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to have the matter resolved tonight.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,10,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated the sequence of events would not change; Council would
like to understand the process.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a medical examiner was agreed upon; that he would
like to have Council receive briefings on matters when a recommendation is made by
the City's experts so that Council understands that it will be giving up its ability to
contest the matter and the matter is being kicked to the statutory side; he would like the
process to change if Council has not been given a heads up for the last twenty years;
the third party administrator made a mistake; some time in the future, he would like to
hear what corrective action has been taken.
The City Attorney stated corrective action is being taken; that she would follow up with
Council regarding the matter later; she is offering to prepare an Off Agenda report to
explain how the workers compensation system works, including how and when an
agreed upon medical examiner might be chosen; Council can advise staff if the process
should be changed; she recommends bringing the City's workers compensation
attorney to Council.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Off Agenda report should include what corrective
action is being taken vis-à-vis the third party so that the mistake does not happen again.
The City Attorney stated the corrective action would be provided to Council; the Off
Agenda would be separate.
Mayor Johnson stated that an Off Agenda report should be provided in addition to a
presentation on the process.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10-481) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14494, ""Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Boatworks Residential Project, Adopting Findings
and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Boatworks Residential Project
Reduced Density Alternative."" Adopted;
(10-481A) Resolution No. 14495, ""Adopting General Plan Amendments Related to
Open Space and Residential Development on the Northern Waterfront."" Adopted;
(10-481B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., to Rezone
Parcels Located at 2229 Through 2235 Clement Avenue, APNS 071-0289-05 and 071-
0290-01 from M-2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District and R-2/PD (Two Family
Residence Planned Development District) to Open Space (O) and R-2/PD (Two Family
Residence Planned Development District). Introduced;
(10-481C) Resolution No. 14496, ""Upholding the Planning Board's Decision to Deny the
Boatworks Residential Project Planned Development and Design Review (PLN08-
0160)."" Adopted; and
(10-481D) Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Agreement Pertaining to the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,11,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the project has gone to BCDC, to which the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether BCDC has indicated that approval would be given.
The Planning Services Manager responded BCDC does not take any action until
Council takes action; stated BCDC is pleased with the amount of open space.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Oak Street would be a two-way street, to which the
Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether car traffic would be permitted on Blanding Avenue
[extension].
The Planning Services Manager responded Blanding Avenue and Elm Street would be
automobile extensions; stated there would be two travel lanes and parking on one side.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated each
residence would have its own parking; parking would be provided for the park in
addition to guest parking for residents.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether guest parking includes parking for people using the
park, to, which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired how parking would be designated, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded details would be addressed in the tentative map.
Mayor Johnson stated enough parking needs to be provided to make the park
accessible to the public not living in the immediate area.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the parking on the northeast corner adjacent to
the shopping center is the [project's] property.
The Planning Services Manager responded the parking is on the property; stated cross
easements would be needed between the two properties.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,12,"Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Dutra property would have the same
philosophy of open space, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the property owner would be responsible
for contamination cleanup and construction and repairs needed to keep the shoreline
from sliding into the water.
The Planning Services Manager responded the property owner and future developer
would be fully responsible for all cleanup; stated the area would be cleaned to
residential standards; the property owner and future developer would be responsible for
structural stability of the waterfront park; a strip of land on the northern edge is owned
by the Army Corp of Engineers; the intent is add the land to the park.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a couple of sunken boats and other things are sliding
into the water and need to be removed; storage spaces have contamination coming up
through cracks in the concrete.
The Planning Services Manager stated the Department of Toxic Substance Control
(DTSC) has a very expensive cleanup plan.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether it has been made clear that the City would
not be liable down the road if things appear.
The City Attorney responded the City does not own the property so there is no liability
for environmental problems.
Councilmember Matarrese stated from a policy standpoint, provisions need to be
included to protect future homeowners.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Settlement Agreement
has a provision regarding DTSC signing-off before a final map is approved.
Councilmember Matarrese stated assurances need to be made to protect the City.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has a unique opportunity to ensure that
adequate bike lanes are provided in addition to waterfront public access.
The Planning Services Manager stated staff has been working with the Public Works
Department to design streets for all modes.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated paseos have been designed
to create linkages.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Oak Street would continue down to the
waterfront.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,13,"The Planning Services Manager responded staff is trying to create a better connection
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars; stated a new, full-scaled road would not be created
because there is no room.
Councilmember Tam stated when the City was working with Alameda Point Community
Partners (APCP), the environmental insurance was cost prohibitive and made the
project financially infeasible; inquired at what stage would environmental liability
insurance be required; stated that she could not find said requirement in the Settlement
Agreement; inquired how assurances would be provided.
The Planning Services Manager responded initially, assurances would come from
DTSC; stated assurances would be required before housing units are built; the City
would not be entering into the chain of title.
Councilmember Tam stated significant public contributions would exist even though the
City would not be in the chain of title.
The City Attorney stated the trigger is property ownership; the City would not need to
provide environmental liability insurance.
Councilmember Tam stated the City would not be required because the burden of
liability would be with the property owner; inquired which street requires a General Plan
Amendment for a right-hand turn lane, to which the Planning Services Manager
responded the Clement Avenue and Oak Street intersection.
Mayor Johnson stated ensuring that the waterfront park area is accessible to the public
is important.
*
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:06 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation): Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board;
Jon Spangler, Alameda; Richard Hausman, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association.
Opponents (Not in favor of staff recommendation): Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park
Action Committee (EPAC); Joseph Woodard, EPAC; and Rebecca Redfield, EPAC.
Councilmember Tam inquired why efforts to obtain Proposition 84 funds were not
successful.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Trust for Public Land evaluates the
probability of success; stated the maximum amount the City could ask for was $5
million; funds would need to be used to purchase the land and build and finish the park;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,14,"the Trust for Public Land did not believe applying for funds would be worthwhile.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would be getting two acres [for a park]; the
project would allow for land cleanup and waterfront stabilization; the solution is good;
coming to a compromise has taken nineteen years; the City needs to move forward.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with the
provision that the City be very clear in holding standards very high to ensure that future
residents would not be impacted by whatever the predecessor activity was on the land;
stated the matter should be part of the entitlement process.
Mayor Johnson stated having labels on the diagrams would have been helpful; inquired
what is the indentation along the landside of the waterfront, to which the Planning
Services Manager responded a concept for a set of stairs, which would be subject to
Design Review.
Mayor Johnson reiterated that the public area needs to be accessible to everyone.
The Planning Services Manager stated the final map would come back to the Planning
Board and ultimately Council for final approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the houses on the northern lots are bigger, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff has had discussions regarding smaller houses in
order to have a bigger park area, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to make the green area as big as possible.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Marina Village has a green area; the only activity is people
walking the trail.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the lack of activity is because of the small hills.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the build out schedule, to which the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services responded forty-eight months.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding would ever become available, to which
the Planning Services Manager responded the City has tried to buy the land for twenty
years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Thompson Field is catty corner from the project; the
School District and City are working on a joint use agreement for football fields; making
the area residential makes sense; maximizing Thompson Field and McKinley Park
would cover the ""active park"" portion; the Dutra property remains open for the future.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,15,"Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the phasing plan for park construction, to which
the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the park would need to be
completed by the 1019 st [house].
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the compromise is good; added a caveat
to the motion to maximize a good, safe, public access.
On the all for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(10-481) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14497, ""Approving Tentative Parcel
Map No. 9876 Planning Application No. PLN09-0185 - a Parcel Map for the Proposed
Subdivision of the Site at 2318 Pacific Avenue into Two Parcels."" Adopted.
The Planner I gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the City would not end up with a mega, monster house similar to
the house on Briggs Avenue.
The Interim City Manager stated the item was continued from the previous Council
meeting because of the fear of splitting residential lots; the neighborhood is mixed use;
the Planning Services Manager has come up with some good ideas for ordinance
changes precluding residential lot splits.
The Planning Services Manager stated the north Park Street area zoning code would be
changed; the City has had a series of proposals for splitting off the back sections
of
properties; staff wants to bring the issue to the Planning Board and Council, to
determine whether the splits should be allowed in the future.
Mayor Johnson stated the Briggs Avenue house affects surrounding backyards; that
she has not heard back on whether the house meets height requirements.
The Planning Services Manager stated scales would be addressed.
Mayor Johnson stated the Briggs Avenue neighborhood size and scale standards were
disregarded.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is thinking about creating certain criteria for
residential development to preserve residential neighborhoods.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a commercial building on Clement Avenue is a disaster.
The Planning Services Manager stated the issue would be resolved with a [new] north
Park Street code; neighborhoods have a thirty-foot height limit.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,16,"Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the matter is being discussed now since the
area is in the north of Lincoln Avenue planning area.
The Planning Services Manager stated the City has chosen not to do a moratorium on
Park Street; staff has allowed north of Park Street projects to move forward; the project
meets all rules and regulations; the City would retain complete control over what goes
in.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA
(10-482) Jon Spangler, Alameda, raised questions regarding worker's compensation.
(10-483) Luisa Vallejos, Alameda, discussed banning smoking.
Mayor Johnson stated staff has been working on the issue.
(10-484) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, provided a handout and discussed Proposition 22.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10-485) Consider Taking Action Regarding Calming Traffic on Residential Streets that
Have Become Overburdened, Used as a ""Cut-Through"" or Experienced Other Traffic
Problems.
Councilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated Council has asked about the issue in the past.
Councilmember Tam stated a 2003 Transportation Master Plan has a tool box list of
solutions, including traffic calming suggestions that the Public Works Department and
Fire Department worked on; the issue is about funding and implementation, not whether
the City has existing policies and tools available.
Councilmember Matarrese stated people on Sherman Street have gathered petitions,
but no action has been taken.
Mayor Johnson stated a report should be brought back; the issue should be reviewed
on a citywide basis.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Transportation Commission's job was to look at the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,17,"issue on a citywide basis; the process has a big hole because the City effectively no
longer has a Transportation Commission.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be brought back.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated issues have been on the table for a while; the problem is not
whether the City has a Transportation Commission or not.
Councilmember Tam stated the wheel should not be reinvented; a more productive
direction would be to find funding to execute solutions.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated street repair is looking pretty decent throughout the City.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of bringing the matter back to Council.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-486) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Services
Human Relations Board (SSHRB).
Mayor Johnson nominated Rebecca Holder for appointment to the SSHRB.
(10-487) Councilmember Gilmore stated in March, Council came to the conclusion that
performance reviews needed to be done for Charter Officers; the agreement was to
have performance reviews come back in September; that she asked about the matter at
the last meeting; she still has not received a response.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council would like to comment.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is not requesting comments from Council, but
from staff; Council gave direction to staff; that she is wondering what has happened.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.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
17
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2010-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:32 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-464) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (54956.9(b); Number of
Cases: One.
(10-465) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9(a); Name of
Case: Ottaviano V. City of Alameda. Not heard.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson
announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the City Council received a briefing
from Legal Counsel; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:05 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
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
TUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2010- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor
Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-488 CC/ARRA/10-69 CIC) Receive a Report on the Status of America's Cup
The Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Alameda Waterfront website is linked to the
City's website, to which the Economic Development Director responded in the negative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to link the Alameda Waterfront
website to the City's website.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated updates are provided via
email.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated another challenge is to bring
a super carrier into Alameda within the next couple of years for Fleet Week.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:09
p.m.
***
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,20,"exceed $500,000""; stated WETA would only get $400,000 if $400,000 comes in.
The Ferry Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated having WETA take over the water side and not the land
side is a good strategy; inquired whether Alameda would be required to maintain
parking, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated the City has been waiting for a long
time; the Agreement has been well crafted.
Councilmember/Board Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated getting the bus service back to the [West End] ferry
terminal would be good.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
2
Improvement Commission
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-10-05,21,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:26
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, CIC
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission
October 5, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf