body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,8,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
growing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will
Point: in only three instances.
not.
First, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the
(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question
Threshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.
about planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.
You'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,
Second, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was
and you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to
conducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or
dig a hole in the soil.)
pavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted
without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Additionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground
surface at North Housing is prohibited without approval
from the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In
any case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging
were conducted while following a site management plan
that appropriately manages potential encounters with
contaminated soil.
Third, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential
area, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is
restricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Page 6 of 6
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,8,"housing marketing objectives; the City would have to find some way to be more
marketable and needs to fight fiercely.
The Acting City Attorney/Legal Council stated a lot of new ideas would be forthcoming.
Mr. Mandelman stated the California Redevelopment Association and League of
California Cities are actively focusing on State goals but would include goals important
to Alameda such as Base reuse and housing.
In favor of resolutions: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, and Jon
Spangler, Alameda.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore expressed appreciation to staff for acting so quickly on the matter;
stated the recommendation is viable.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether tonight's recommendation would be
the only way to exercise local control, to which Mr. Mandelman responded that he thinks
so.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Mandelman stated
the deadline for dissolution is February 1st; up to that time, the legislature would have an
opportunity to come up with something that would work for communities that have
bases that need to be redeveloped; the deadline for deciding whether to be a successor
agency is January 13th
The Chief Operating Officer stated that she has a conference call scheduled for 8:30
a.m. tomorrow with base reuse communities.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson moved adoption of the resolutions with noted
amendment to Section 7.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 6.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:37
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
4
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,8,"Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Raymond A. Pacovsky, Sr., Alameda;
Raymond S. Pacovsky, Jr., Alameda, and Barbara Kerr, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the initiation of construction without permits
makes the permitting process difficult; inquired whether the
Appellant informed the Planning Board that the structure was over
his property line.
The Appellant responded in the negative; stated that the structure
is well within the property line; the structure was moved 2 inches
inward from the original garage.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how tall the spa was from the floor of
the deck to the top of the spa, to which the Appellant responded
three and a half feet at the most.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning staff recommended
dropping the deck approximately 12 inches; inquired whether the 12
inches would equate to two steps.
The Appellant stated that he would need to put in three steps to
lower the deck 12 inches.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether accommodating his wife was part
of the reason for having the deck the same level as the house.
The Appellant responded that his wife has had two back surgeries
and three hip replacements; stairs are difficult for her.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is a two-foot hop to get into the
spa which appears to be more difficult to navigate than the stairs
out of the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that one of the reasons for deck height limits
is because high decks and spas are an intrusion into neighbors'
backyards inquired how the footprint of the original garage was
established.
The Supervising Planner responded that the Appellant submitted
plans in 1991 for foundation work at the front of the house which
indicate that there is a separation between the back of the house;
the then existing garage did not seem to be as close as the current
plans show.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant put siding on the
neighbors' structures, to which the Appellant responded that he put
sheet metal up to prevent rotting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,8,"close the gap in the budget shortfall; moved final passage of the
Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Daysog, stated that he was concerned
about the possibility of a charge on either cable or electric
bills; it is important to be upfront with the public regarding the
$750,000 and the possibility of recouping the money through rate
charges.
The Interim City Manager stated impacts would be determined through
the Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) budget processi stated that
there are always trade offs in the budget.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the Ordinance, which
is the more conservative approach given the different options
presented.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a good likelihood that
something would need to be massaged; AP&T should not go through a
disproportionate adjustment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
(05-042) Ordinance No. 2935, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community Benefit
Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda
Improvement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) . ""
Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.
]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-043 - ) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget review
process would take two months.
The Interim City Manager outlined the budget adoption process and
stated the mid-year budget review addresses expenditures and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,8,"The Development Services Director responded staff was working on a
new scope of work and information would be provided to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a possibility to
receive more than the $1.3 million grant.
The Development Services Director responded next year's total
budget will be approximately $1.5 million with recaptured funds
from loans; the outright grant will be approximately $1.3 million;
program revenues and reclaimed dollars will be approximately
$200,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the CDBG funding takes care
of the Housing Authority's needs, to which the Acting Assistant
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Development Services
Department's funding portion takes care of housing over and above
the Housing Authority.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the majority of CDBG funding is for housing and rental
rehabilitation.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that the Housing Authority
has used CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment funds in the past but does
not plan to use the funding this year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone's needs would be left out
with the proposed Action Plan, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether community service needs are
reviewed periodically.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated Alameda goes beyond what is required; stated safety net
provider participation is unbelievable.
Mayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB and staff for all the hard work.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,8,"Unified School District i Gerbrehiwot Tesfandrias, Alameda Michael
John Torrey, Alameda. Samya Ahmed, HITA; David de la Torre,
Alameda; Lorraine Lilley, HITA; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Lynette
Lee, Renewed Hope; Isolina Cadle, HITA; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista
United Methodist Church; Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Arnold
Fong, Alameda resident and RPO; Lily Lueng, Alameda.
Neutral Dr. Mary Abu-saba, Alameda; Deborah James, Alameda; Craig
Miott, Alameda.
Opponents: Jack Sullivan, Alameda resident and Rental Property
Owner (RPO) i Jun Saraspi, RPO; John Goerl, RPO; Shirley Green,
Alameda resident and RPO; Paul Anders, Alameda resident and RPO;
Merle Pagel, Alameda resident and RPO; Maewood Zarback, Alameda
resident and RPO; Roger Armstrong, RPO; Rosemary McNally, Alameda
resident and RPO; Angela McIntyre, Alameda Association of Realtors;
Harry McMillan, RPO; Ann O'Rourke, Alameda resident and RPO; former
Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Chris Mazala, Mason Management
Don Camara, Alameda resident and RPO; Lisa Fowler, Gallagher and
Lindsey Eileen Walker, Alameda resident and President of Alameda
Association of Realtors; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Dave Gallagher, RPO;
Hanna Fry, Alameda resident and RPO; Mark Palmer, Alameda resident
and RPO; Ellen Purdy, Harbor Bay Realty; Ed Murphy, Alameda
resident and RPO; Arch Woodliff, Alameda resident and RPO; Suha
Erdem, Alameda resident and RPO; Cynthia Ridenour, Alameda resident
and RPO; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Thomas Cooke,
Bonanza Apartments; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates;
Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Steve Edrington, Rental
Housing Association of Northern Alameda County.
(05-060) After speaker Cynthia Ridenour, Councilmember Matarrese
moved that the Regular Meeting be continued past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that as a graduate student he worked on
a project analyzing the impacts of rent control in Berkeley and
Santa Monica; in both cases, rent control laws did not help the
people; he is concerned that someone would use the proposed
ordinance to file a lawsuit for reasons having little or nothing to
do with the Harbor Island Apartment situation; the emphasis of the
proposed ordinance is wrong by focusing on landlord/tenant
relations; involvement in landlord/tenant relations is done
informally via the Rent Review Advisory Committee; requested that
staff, landlords and residents work together to develop something
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,8,"reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State
governments have deficits other cities are making staff
reductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per
month; Alameda's financial problems are not unique the problem is
due to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in
the PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments
have not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be
raised significantly.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being
made without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has
been a dramatic shift in the State's economy ; the budget has to be
brought in line with economic realities; the City might face
equally or more difficult choices in the next budget the City
needs to focus on core services; the ten-year budget forecast will
be integral in forming the next budget the reserves do not allow
the City to postpone dealing with the situation.
Councilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to
implement budget changes the budget would evolve over the next
four or five years; the City needs to be prepared.
Councilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were
needed; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent
overtime and short staffing issues.
The Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two
positions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but
he is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is
absolutely required.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in
police and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the
streets.
The Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced
in a department without recognizing that there will be an impact;
both the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort
to have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay
in processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill
following officer promotions, there will be an impact.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should hear about the
impacts; there will be ramifications to service; five Firefighters
would be hired instead of eleven; inquired whether other vacancies
are projected in the Fire Department.
The Interim City Manager responded only eleven vacancies are known.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:50 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
( 05-090 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of cases : Housing and Urban Development [Claim No. 178760 and
177448]
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the
Council/Commission gave direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair 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 Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,8,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-121) - Recommendation to approve the Theatre Design Guidelines
and presentation of conceptual parking structure designs.
The Development Services Director provided a brief summary.
Mayor Johnson inquired how wide the sidewalks are on Central
Avenue, to which the Development Services Director responded 14
feet i stated sidewalks on Oak Street are 8 feet.
Mayor Johnson stated that the design guidelines provide a sense of
what the community would like to see when the architects come back
with actual plans.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the timeline.
The Development Services Director responded the design guidelines
could be attached to the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) ; the DDA should be finalized within the next couple of days
for public display and a hearing in April; noted that the public
hearing notice for a DDA is extensive and lengthy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired the impact of not including the
guidelines in the DDA.
The Development Services Director responded having the guidelines
as part of the DDA gives it more importance.
The City Attorney stated that the DDA does not have to have any
attachments.
Mayor Johnson stated if the guidelines are not adopted tonight,
they would not be attached to the DDA or the DDA would be delayed.
The Development Services Director stated Council could adopt the
guidelines separately.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to have the guidelines
attached; that she is prepared to go forward with the approval of
the design guidelines.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the scope of the architect's
desires should not be limited; inquired whether there would be two
or three different design concepts.
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,8,"Councilmember Daysog stated that it appears that acceptance of the
Community Center design green lights thee project and that
structural issues would be dealt with administratively
Mayor Johnson inquired whether structural findings could be brought
back.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an off
agenda report would be provided.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the tenant status, to which
the Acting City Manager responded there are four tenants remaining
on leases or have approval from the property owners to stay for two
or three months.
Mr. Hartney stated that there is a 60-day timeframe for the Permit
Streamlining Act; that the deadline was in February the Planning
Board requested another study session and an extension, which was
granted; stated that three tenants would be remaining as of
tomorrow at noon; noted that the remaining tenants are under long-
term leases.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the cosmetic work would trigger
a requirement to upgrade the electrical or plumbing, to which the
Supervising Planner responded that she would provide Council
information on the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Community Center was
considered an amenity to the project and whether the City has any
way of regulating the size or square footage of a building that can
be deemed a Community Center.
The Supervising Planner responded that there is no regulation;
stated that the Fifteen Group wanted to provide an opportunity for
some amenities but the building would not be a sufficient size to
hold tenant meetings.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the prior use of two units as
office space was an expansion of use and whether there is an issue
with Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded that
staff would provide Council information on the matter.
Mr. Hartney stated that the plans show that the building was
permitted for 615 units; noted that it is not a change of use if
the owner chooses to take two units off the market to use for its
own purpose, and then put the units back on the market.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would still be 615 units
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,8,"staff and Grant Allocation Committee endorsed; more work needs to
be done to refine the information; there are plans to have a Town
Hall meeting next week or the following week; then staff will
provide a status report to Council; a better job can be done on
marketing the ferry.
Mayor Johnson stated that when the ferry problem became apparent,
the Acting City Manager immediately took action and set up meetings
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; thanked the Acting
City Manager for the efforts taken to negotiate one more year.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that e-mails be sent to concerned
citizens [regarding the Town Hall meeting] in addition to the
normal noticing procedures.
(05-179) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment
to the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ray Gaul, Jane Sullwold, and Bill Schmitz
to the Gold Commission.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was extremely impressed with
the applicants' depth; he would hope that the individuals look at
other commissions and boards.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan.
(05-180) - Consideration of the Mayor's nomination for appointment
to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board.
Continued.
(05-181) Selection of alternate to serve on the Alameda County
Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan has indicated an
interest to serve as the alternate.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that Councilmember deHaan serve on the
Alameda County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-182) Councilmember Daysog noted that today is the City of
Alameda's 151st birthday.
(05-183 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested a report on the Lincoln
School drop off area situation; there is concern with the next
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,8,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:38 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
8
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,8,"Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
8
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,8,"intersection and review whether traffic would be pushed to Lincoln
and Buena Vista Avenues before a four-way stop sign is installed
the traffic lights on Constitution Way should be timed to prevent
bottlenecking and encourage drivers to use it.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers mentioned that the City
does not have a certified traffic engineer requested staff to
comment on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog noted there have been two pedestrian deaths on
Constitution Way, which should be kept in mind; stated there should
be a greater review of the data; requested a comparison with
previous levels to determine whether Gold Coast residents are
commuting down Sherman Street.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the problem is traffic traveling to the
Gold Coast or South Shore filters down Sherman Street, as well as
Bay and Saint Charles Streets, to avoid the bottleneck on Eighth
Street.
Councilmember deHaan noted people are using other routes because
Grand Street is becoming a bottleneck in the morning a remedy is
needed while waiting for the traffic study; police activity is
temporary; pedestrian crosswalk paddles and blinking lights work
well and should be considered; the intersection was a high priority
for a traffic signal fifteen years ago; a solution is needed.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember deHaan's
suggestion to install pedestrian paddles; requested the liability
issue be addressed related to postponement.
The Public Works Director stated paddles could not be installed
until there are crosswalks at the intersection; Public Works would
need at least four weeks to compile data requested by Council.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion included direction for
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by the
Council.
Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to include direction to
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that police
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,8,"(05-277) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001 and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader. Continued to June 21, 2005.
05-278 ) Resolution No 13853, ""Confirming the Business Improvement
Area Report for FY 2005-2006 and Levying an Annual Assessment on
the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY
2005-2006. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( 05 -279 - ) Recommendation to accept the Donor Recognition and Names
Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $30,000 contribution for the
mural was reflective of the cost.
The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated that four
or five works of art have been selected for the new Main Library ;
there is funding for only one.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed policy has been
patterned after other libraries, to which the Library Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan commended the Library Director's ingenuity
inquired whether plaques would be placed in appropriate spots
reflecting the donation.
The Library Director responded there would be a donor wall;
individuals who donate $5,000 over their lifetime would be
recognized on the donor wall; rooms and pieces of furniture would
also be recognized; areas of the library will be built without
donations; donations can specifically name and honor the donor in a
particular area of the Library.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,8,"Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that individuals
appeared tonight or e-mailed the Council to contest their bill;
inquired whether the Council would allow individuals who have
not responded to contest their bills.
The Acting City Manager responded that everyone had the right to
either provide something in writing or come to the Hearing to
respond; stated that he does not see any way for other
individuals to be accommodated now.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-310) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating
Agreements for Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS) and
adopt associated budget.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Agreement is an
extension of an existing Agreement with Harbor Bay Maritime
(HBM) to operate the AHBFS between Bay Farm Island and San
Francisco; the Agreement is complicated because a good deal of
the funding comes through Regional Measure 1 Funds, which are
administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) ; HBM must achieve 40% revenue through fare box collections
in order to receive the funding through the City; the fare box
collection has dropped in the past few years; collection was 23%
last year, 31% the year before, and 32% the preceding year MTC
has notified the City that funding will no longer continue if
the 40% revenue through fare box is not achieved; MTC has
allowed the City an additional year; stated that the ferry was
down for four months last year and the cost of fuel has
practically doubled during the last two years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether on board labor costs was a
concern.
The Acting City Manager stated that the City is not a party to
negotiations between the Operator and the Union; the Union
contacted the City regarding concern with a reduction in the
work shift from eight hours to seven hours. eight-hour - work
shifts will be maintained per negotiations.
The Ferry Services Manager stated that HBM and the Union have
reached a contract agreement for the next year beginning July 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,8,"advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would
rather have the City Attorney perform legal work than
administrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more
valued as a lawyer.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 5:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-319) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title City
Attorney.
(05-320) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One.
(05-321) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator:
Acting City Manager; Employee Organizations : Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA) ; Alameda Fire Management Association
(AFMA) ; Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) :
Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and International
Association of Firefighters (IAFF) .
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting
at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the closed session at 9:05 p.m.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of
the City Attorney and requested an open session agenda item;
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
permission to waive attorney/client privilege on the July 2000
document and produce as part of the subpoena; and regarding
Conference with Labor Negotiator, the Council obtained a briefing
from the Acting City Manager gave direction and requested
information.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,8,"The Supervising Planner stated that she was not aware of staff
disallowing aluminum sliding windows as long as the windows were an
appropriate style for the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that ""appropriate style"" is a very subjective
term; muntins are prohibited; Council did not intend to have any
prohibitions when the guidelines were approved.
The Supervising Planner stated the guidelines include a one-year
trial period to iron out the bugs.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council adopted the guidelines with
the understanding that they would be reasonably applied; a Citywide
prohibition would require that the matter be brought back to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the guidelines do not prohibit
anything, but provide direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that internal muntins between double-paned
windows are prohibited Citywide; the Council did not have any
expectation that there would be prohibitions in the guidelines.
The Acting City Manager stated that internal muntins are addressed
under a heading of what should be allowed; that staff has been
given direction to review each case individually.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has a diverse housing type;
there cannot be one rule that applies to every house.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with changing
requirements for second story setbacks. noted there have been two
or three issues regarding blockage of sunlight in the past two
years; that he would like to have a separate vote on second story
setback regulations if the matter is voted on tonight.
The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
referring to the three-foot setback which allows going straight up
or the additional two-foot setback required with an existing five-
foot setback.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he was referring to remaining
with the status quo in all instances; a process can be followed to
receive an exception.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether an existing roof pitch could
be replicated.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,8,"the ARRA and CIC by-laws then, Council could discuss whether it
wants to delegate its authority to the PUB.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether items other than an
estimate over $35,000, policy questions, significant ramifications
or Council questions should trigger that the matter comes to
Council; inquired if there were significant ramifications the
matter would come to Council regardless of whether the cost would
be $35,000.
Vie Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she
does not care how much a matter costs, the matter should come to
Council if there would be significant ramifications.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the four points [over $35,000,
policy questions, significant ramifications or Council questions)
are the conditions under which the Council's authority is retained.
Mayor Johnson concurred; stated the language should be clear that
[under the four conditions, ] the Council retains its authority to
empower the City Attorney to hire outside counsel.
The City Attorney requested that the revised proposal be brought
back to the Council in September since she will not be at the
August 16, 2005 City Council Meeting.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-387) - Ordinance No. 2943, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations). "" Finally passed.
Ken Carvalho, Alameda, urged the Council to pass the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
(05-388) Ordinance No. 2944, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use Permit
within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District of Chapter
XXX (Development Regulations) . "" Finally passed.
 ouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,8,"parking structure creates additional business opportunities and new
value; the money is also used for projects that the public has
decided are important; the historic theater renovation is such a
case and is an eligible, legal project i the lion share of the $5. 9
million concerning Councilmember Daysog is the construction,
stabilization and restoration of the historic theater part of the
expenditure that would never be recovered is for restoring the
theater, which was considered of great concern to the community
staff never reviewed a reuse of the building that would recover the
investment the theater did not have a private sector investor all
these years because nobody in the private sector could figure out
what could go into the building to substantiate or support the
investment.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the report shows a net negative,
to which Mr. Kelly responded redevelopment law requires disclosure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason for the negative net
present value is because the Council directed staff to preserve the
historic theater; Council felt the theater would continue to
deteriorate if the City did not move forward with preservation; the
project cost would not be so high if restoring the theater was not
so valuable and the City wanted to build a new theater and parking
garage, without the historic theater the project is running in the
red because so much money is being spent for the historic theater
infrastructure; inquired whether the historic theater is a
financial albatross.
The Development Services Director responded public entities restore
buildings because of the appreciation of the value of the asset to
the community, on which an economic value cannot be placed; a
building use that could support the project costs would result in
the building being butchered to increase density, such as public
storage; said type of use would not meet the community's
restoration and preservation goals.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the parking structure
design/build allows the design to be modified.
The Development Services Director responded that one of the goals
of using the design/build process was to ensure that the project
was built efficiently with as little public money as possible; the
design/build process allows designers and construction to come
together to yield the most efficient garage the exterior design
review is being resolved to prevent the design/build contract from
growing in response to design issues; pinning down the design up
front provides the additional guarantee that there would be no
questions about what the design/build team put together i the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,8,"employed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he was not
sure; stated that the floor area ratio falls within the lot
coverage requirements.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what was the maximum lot coverage.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded 40%; stated the
lot is deceiving because of the area behind the neighbor's garage.
Mayor Johnson stated the portion that goes around the corner is not
visible; the house would be very large on the lot; inquired whether
a fine could be imposed instead of the five-year penalty.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there would be
increased fees based on the valuation of the construction, for work
without permit, and for investigation.
Mayor Johnson stated other people should not be allowed to
deconstruct and reconstruct until the ordinance is revised.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the staff is
erring on the cautious side and referring people to the HAB.
Councilmember Daysog stated the lot would be roughly 9,450 square
feet if the dog run was not included, which would be a .37% floor
area ratio; housing should be viewed in terms of adjacent homes as
well as appropriate lot size; the home fits the lot size; there is
not a monstrous home affect.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the direction has been
given to refer people to the HAB, to which the Acting Planning and
Building Director responded that people are being referred to the
HAB if demolition appears to be close to 30%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that 30% could be a calculation
based on the structure of the building and not necessarily in
context with the intent of the ordinance; there should be some
discretion applied or guidance adopted allowing 25% or 30%
demolition to the front of a building and roofline would not meet
the real intent of the ordinance; inquired whether there is any
refinement on the plan check level that ties back to the issue of
design review.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he makes the
30% determination during design review; that he always gives more
weight to the removal of exterior walls, particularly front walls,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,8,"ordinance allows the Planning Board to make decisions on what is
required; there are costs to improve properties; large complex
units are selling for $150,000 to $200,000 per unit; condominiums
are going for double the amount or more; property owners have some
room to make improvements, provide for inclusionary housing, and
still make a profit; the report states that discretion would be at
either the Planning Board or Council level when economically
feasible.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council was being
requested to adopt concepts such as changing rules to allow for
condominium conversion or whether more analysis would be provided;
stated reviewing the analysis first might be better.
Mr. Norton responded that each property would be different; some
buildings are pre-1900 and the conversion and inclusionary housing
would be prohibitive; buildings constructed later meet a lot of the
current codes but still would command a significant value if
converted to condominiums; generalizing each piece of property is
difficult; the Council could direct staff to provide additional
review of the concept more time would be needed to get more detail
on condominium conversion upgrades and what the condominiums would
command if sold; minimum lot size, setback requirements, parking,
and some code compliance issues would be somewhat compromised;
staff would be relied upon to decide whether a specific case made
sense.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a deeper level of
analysis; profile case studies should be done before approval of
the condominium conversion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council gave the Task Force two
specific charges 1) review how to prevent mass evictions, and 2)
review more affordable housing opportunities; the original
timeframe was to return with an answer to the Council in 90 days;
the Task Force did not return in 90 days because both charges were
very large; a very broad brush set of recommendations is presented;
the intent is to receive some Council feedback indicating whether
there is an interest in pursuing condominium conversions ; staff
would provide an analysis and bring the information back to the
Council, if there is an interest.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a real concern with health and
safety compliance and code enforcement there are some concerns
with landlords who are not properly managing property; inquired
whether there are other [code] issues on the horizon.
Mr. Norton responded that there is concern that the same situation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,8,"Employee : City Attorney. Not heard.
(05-494) - Consideration of City Attorney contract. Not heard.
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 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,8,"The Development Services Director stated screen size and number of
seats were discussed; internal evaluations included reviewing
something smaller.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were
recommended.
The Development Services Director responded that staff concluded
that five screens would not be viable as competition continued to
increase in the area.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the viability of a five-
screen theater was understood.
The Development Services Director responded different product and
configurations were reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were considered
and recommended by staff.
The Development Services Director responded moving forward on the
matter was considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 7 of the staff report
addresses parking garage availability; the bottom line notes that
the parking garage and available parking would still have an extra
capacity of about 335, the day after the parking structure was
built; inquired whether there was a change in October 2005.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 28 of the study notes there
would be additional parking; he is concerned about using off-street
parking; inquired whether off-street private parking could be used.
The Development Services Director responded that the referenced
study includes the Library; the studies are not comparable; there
was some accommodation for off-street parking within the
calculation of the use of the Library; off-street parking has not
been calculated for the parking structure, cineplex or historic
theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why private parking was included.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
private parking lots that are not owned by the City, such as the
Bank of America lot that make up part of the mix; the parking lots
become part of the available population when office workers go
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 15, 2005- -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-529) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Executive Management Employees, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(05-530) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation -
Name of case: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of
Alameda, et al.
(05-531) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property:
2900 Main Street Negotiating Parties : City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
(05-532) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation: Name
of case : Mohlen and Skrinde V. City of Alameda. Not held.
(05-533) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City Council
meeting at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the closed session at 8:40 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the Executive Management
Employees, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association, the Council
received a briefing from labor negotiators regarding Citizens for
a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda, et al, the Council
received a briefing from Legal Counsel; regarding Conference with
Real Property Negotiators, the Council received a briefing and no
action was taken; and regarding the City Attorney, the Council gave
direction.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,8,"The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for
Charter cities is $9.47.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could
be unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is
important; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects
that would provide benefit.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to
make adjustments.
The City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff
recommendation regarding current funds so that streets and
sidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be
initiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the
reserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated
funds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty
year scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial
projection.
Mayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that
budget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.
The City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating
additional revenues should also be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be
reflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking
the money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if
necessary.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-
year review and decisions would be made then; there should be an
on-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be
deferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be
established as a standing rate in the budget processi determining
how projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be
done if other funds become available is an important segment.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of
drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current
budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,8,"Asuchio, El Salvador Civic Leaders.
Stewart Chen, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) , stated
that the Sister City workgroup was established a year ago to
explore and expand Alameda's involvement in a global friendship
movement; the community and St. Philip Neri's parish are interested
in establishing a relationship with Asuchio, El Salvador stated
that an invitation to visit is the first step in formalizing a
friendship.
Rob Bonta, SSHRB, stated the key to a successful relationship is
having existing energy and support within the community; the goal
is to establish a non-profit organization that is run by community
members.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for their hard work.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for bringing
the matter forward; stated traveling to Asuchio was rewarding to
him; members in the audience have made trips to El Salvador ; there
is a good nucleus in gaining something for Alameda as well as
Asuchio.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that he
likes the idea of the City of Alameda having relations with a more
needy city.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( 05-588 - ) Consideration of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a
participant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing the
feasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for lead
abatement education and services.
Mayor Johnson stated that representatives from the Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) were present to answer any questions.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a better explanation regarding
whether there was any legal problem in agreeing to ask only
questions that directly relate to determining the viability of an
increase in the fee to fund the Lead Program; stated the thrust of
the last Council discussion was to only pay if the survey was
restricted to lead-related questions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,8,"design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether money is given out as loans or
grants for substantial rehabilitation, to which the Community
Development Manager responded loans.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services and Human
Relations Board for putting the amendment together.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-009 - ) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated that she was concerned
about the economic impacts of the proposed Target the neighborhood
will be negatively impacted; informed decisions cannot be made
without reviewing the economic aspects of the project; 75% of
Alameda's retail leakage comes from high-end specialty stores, not
discount stores; increased street resurfacing and criminal elements
need to be addressed.
(06-010) Dr. Arthur Lipow, Alameda Public Affairs Forum, stated
that he was disturbed that there were no barriers at the boat
launch at the end Grand Street; the Acting Police Chief does not
consider the site to be a hazard; a doctor died at the site, as
well as two others; inquired why something has not been done to
correct the situation.
(06-011) Jon Spangler, Alameda, requested that the Council
consider joining the Kyoto USA movement in voluntarily adopting
the Kyoto protocols; the City already is a leader on energy
policies through Alameda Power and Telecom and waste management
programs stated that he has great reservations about the proposed
Target Harsh Development and Target need to reach out to the
community to ensure that appropriate contributions are made as was
done by Catellus.
(06-012) ) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated she was concerned about
how the proposed Target would impact the small merchants on Park
Street and Webster Street the Safeway and Trader Joe parking area
is a mess; the Grand Street boat slip gives an illusion that
Oakland is very close; the street should be barricaded to avoid
accidents; eight cars have driven into the estuary; three deaths
have occurred.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,8,"Iraq; kindling should not be thrown on the fire that is already in
Washington, D.C. and Sacramento; there is an opportunity to
responsibility discuss the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the eloquence
of tonight's speakers; urged that the matter be placed on an agenda
for action; stated she can see the arguments for bringing the
California National Guard home; she is comfortable in supporting
the decision; she is less comfortable about inserting herself in
the national debate regarding levels of troops, even though
personally she is not in favor of having troops in Iraq; she would
look forward to having a discussion on the matter and receiving
more information from experts before rendering an opinion; two
resolutions may be appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated several resolutions could be
considered.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved to place the matter on the next City
Council agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated that there was some discussion on Assembly
Member Hancock's resolution regarding the authority of the Governor
and Federal Legislation; she would like to have more information on
how the issue relates to the National Guard.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is some urgency regarding
the matter he would like to have Alameda's voice heard in getting
Assembly Member Hancock's resolution passed; the deficit impacting
Alameda is a certainty just like an earthquake on the Hayward
fault; the deficit impact has already visited Alameda on the Base.
The City Manager requested clarification on the concept of two
resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate a
combination; he would prefer a simple, direct approach.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to pursue a more
simple resolution which has no reference to situations in
Washington, D.C. or Sacramento, but which addresses a statement of
belief from Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that any Councilmember could bring ideas for
discussion; other draft resolutions could be part of the Council
packet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,8,"shown to each other and thanked Councilmember Matarrese for
bringing the issue to the community for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the speakers and those who sent e-
mails and letters; stated the initial notion was to bring the
California National Guard home; personally he feels that the rest
of the troops cannot be left behind an exit is needed for all;
that he is very glad that Ms. Morrison is back home and is honored
by
her presence; other Alamedans are in danger; the City is
directly impacted and damaged by the policy being carried out; he
understands that the Charter sets limitations on the City Council;
the Charter does not limit speaking to higher governments letters
are written and resolutions are made when higher levels of
government propose policies that would damage Alameda; Alameda's
presence was made known regarding the port of Oakland; a seawall
broke due to a storm and high tides on Bay Farm Island; Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money was to pay for the repair;
the federal government provides funding for Section 8 housing,
highways, transportation, and the Base's superfund cleanup the
federal government is saying there is no money; money is taken away
from cities if the State receives less federal money; the Base
impact is real and direct; Alamedans will pay for living on a sand
bar when an earthquake occurs; simple and direct language is
proposed for the resolution; Alameda is paying a price that is
greater than the benefit; proposed the following resolution
language ""WHEREAS, the costs have resulted in unprecedented
Federal budget deficits, which directly impact and damage the State
of California and Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think the community
consensus is to have the Council speak on behalf of the City; she
concurs that local levels are affected by federal issues; she does
not mind communicating her concern regarding the level of the
California National Guard and the ability to respond to local and
State emergencies; she feels the resolution goes beyond that
concern.
Councilmember Daysog stated he had the opportunity to go to
Washington, D.C. over the weekend; he was touched to see 50,000
names of people who paid the ultimate sacrifice; the Vietnam War
was highly controversial and lasted longer than necessaryi Council
meetings are a place where ideas can be heard; the Vietnam Memorial
might not have been necessary if towns voiced opinions earlier;
City Councils need to make statements on issues of grave importance
such as Iraq; the City of Alameda is steeped in history and proud
of traditions, including the Base and individuals such as Jimmy
Doolittle who became a World War II hero; he does not want the City
of Alameda and the City Council to be like other Bay Area City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,8,"There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would recuse himself because he
owns property within 300 feet of Marina Village and left the room.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief report.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether live-aboards were counted as
units under the Housing Element.
The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated that only
floating homes [houseboats] are treated as housing units.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether dues would pay for the maintenance,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired how dues would be established, to which the
Supervising Planner responded that dues would be established
through the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are other marina
condominiums in the area.
The Supervising Planner responded Emerycove in Emeryville has been
in place for 20 years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the percentage of ownership
at Emerycove.
The Emerycove Harbor Master responded all 430 slips are privately
owned.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would happen if 100% was not
sold out.
The Emerycove Harbor Master responded the original owner owned the
430 slips and has sold all but 157 slips.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of ownership is
planned, to which Don Parker responded 100%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the percentage of current
live-aboards.
The Marina Harbor Master Manager responded 10% is allowed, which is
75 live-aboards. currently, there are 63 live-aboards.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,8,"property negotiator; regarding Public Employee Performance
Evaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
2
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,8,"Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolutions with
comment to work with the Planning Director on the activity-based
treatment of the green space between the walking path and parking
lot.
The Planning Director stated that the landscape plan would come
back to her for approval.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
]
(06-179) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$1,246,200.00 to East Bay Construction Company, Inc. for the
construction of the 4-acre Bayport Park.
The Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the staff report indicates that
the clarifications are non-substantive; requested a review of the
issues.
The Redevelopment Manager responded four issues were raised: 1) bid
pricing was not provided in both words and figures, 2) sub-
contractors were not listed for each portion of the work, 3) the
supplier was not listed for the restroom, and 4) Disadvantage
Business Enterprise status was not provided.
Wayne Tolman, Goodland Landscape Construction, submitted a handout;
reviewed the issues for the bid protest.
Tom Wortham, Goodland Landscape Construction owner, outlined the
irregularities in the bid documents submitted by East Bay
Construction.
In response to Mayor Johnson's request for clarification of the bid
protest issues, the City Attorney stated that a review of the
issues indicate the four bidding defects amount to bidding
irregularities and do not create an unfair advantage ; stated
Alameda is a Charter City and is not covered by the Public Contract
Code.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the additional information
provided tonight could be a concern.
The City Attorney responded the bid amount did not change; the
substance of the bid document is correct.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,8,"for the downtown area.
Mayor Johnson stated bids [ for the theater] should be coming back
in May; costs would be known at that time.
Councilmember Daysog stated the initial estimate was approximately
$9.5 for refurbishing the historic theater; now costs are $13
million; on-going vigilance will be needed as the project proceeds.
Mr. Kirwin stated he would like to know the cap before the project
is initiated.
(06-210) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated the public should be
advised that projects could be handled by bringing concerns to a
Councilmember's attention so the Councilmember can request a Call
for Review at no charge.
(06-211) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that Alameda should have a
Sunshine Ordinance as strong as Oakland's which aims at opening up
government to public scrutiny and ensuring that government is more
accountable in terms of public record and public meetings.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-212) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Film Commission. Continued to May 2, 2006.
(06 -1213 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated there are concerns with the
Target project; the entire project should be discussed so that
everyone understands what the entire project entails discussions
have suggested that a parking structure is being contemplated.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:26 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
8
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,8,"Mayor Johnson suggested moving up the paragraph regarding the City
of Alameda being a consumer of local businesses. stated the City is
falling short in buying in Alameda despite Municipal Code Section
2-62; the opening paragraph should include a statement regarding
the City of Alameda buying locally and promoting Alameda businesses
as shopping destinations language should be added to the last
paragraph regarding the Finance Department's efforts to show that
the ""Buy Alameda"" philosophy is not just based on the Alameda
Municipal Code; the April check register shows that $20,340 out of
$4.5 million was spent in Alameda.
The Finance Director stated that $91,151 was spent locally;
$159,000 was purchased in Alameda County and approximately $2
million was spent outside Alameda County.
Mayor Johnson stated many goods and services are not available in
Alameda; there is a better chance of a business locating in Alameda
if businesses know the City will do business locally; the City is
trying to provide an incentive for businesses to move to Alameda;
$4.5 million is a lot of public money; she seldom sees outside
businesses supporting the City's non-profits.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a trend has been seen
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the trend
does not move positively in one direction; one month may have an
increasing proportion of payment to Alameda businesses and the next
month may be different.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with Mayor
Johnson's recommendations.
The Acting Assistant to the City Manager summarized the Mayor's
recommendations to move up the paragraph regarding the City of
Alameda being a consumer of business, include the City of Alameda
buying locally and promoting Alameda businesses as shopping
destinations, and include the Finance Department's efforts.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-236) Resolution No. 13951, ""Establishing Guiding Principles
for the Management of the City Fleet Vehicles and Equipment. ""
Adopted.
The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Public Works' budget would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,8,"Councilmember Daysog suggested researching adding ""Important
Notice"" in the top five languages to the notification.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether most of the people on the
list have paid business licenses in the past.
The Finance Director responded some are continuing business; the
majority took out a business license in 2004 but did not renew in
2005.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the notification indicates that the
owner needs to advise the City when the business ceases, to which
the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Rupert Davis, Oregon, stated he disagrees with the March 15 letter
he received; his mother-in-law had a business license [for 720
Lincoln Avenue] until 1997; rent stopped for the upper unit in 1997
because of renovation; his mother-in-lav was advised by the Finance
Department that a business license is not required if only one unit
is rented; his mother-in-law passed away in 2001, and he and his
wife took ownership; the Finance Department personally informed him
that a business license is not required if only one unit is rented;
an $84 late fee is ridiculous when he was told that he did not need
a business license; only one unit was rented in 1997, 1998, and
1999, and he did not own the property at that time; no units were
rented from 2000 to 2003; rent started in February 2004.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested that Mr. Davis's case be referred to the
Finance Department to determine whether the fee is valid.
The Finance Director stated she would work with Mr. Davis.
Councilmember Matarrese stated conclusions would be made based upon
the supporting documentation.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff recommendation with
direction to review and determine the validity of Mr. Davis's
complaints and research adding ""Important Notice"" in the top five
languages to the notification.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,8,"presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation on how the Historical
Advisory Board (HAB) continually adds to the pool of suggested
names available for City property; inquired whether the HAB was the
only means for names to get on the list; stated residents and
citizen groups have proposed names in the past; inquired whether
there was a specific period of time for recommendations.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded names are taken
on an on-going basis; stated requests are dealt with individually.
The Planning and Building Director stated the HAB has not suggested
any new names since she has been with the City; the original list
went to the HAB to review the historical validity of the names.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how a citizen's request for recognizing
a relative in the street naming process is handled; to which the
Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the names are
presented to a specific board or commission, depending on the area
of interest.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who updated the Official Naming List
in 2003, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded
the Planning Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated the list was not used for Bayport
street naming; the gaps need to be closed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated existing streets should not continue
with a different name is another issue, such as Santa Clara Avenue
continuing to the Naval Air Station.
The Planning and Building Director stated the policy clarifies that
the street name is to continue.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Bayport streets would
be renamed, to which the Planning and Building Director responded
there are no plans to change the names.
Councilmember Daysog requested that Willie Stargell's name be
forwarded to the HAB.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports Councilmember Daysog's
request ; an open season is needed to update the list he would
prefer to address louncilmember Daysog's request separately.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to have the process
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,8,"the focus should be on rehabilitation of the historic theater
suggested the City consider operating the renovated historic
theater.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City bonded for a project that
included the theater, off street parking and some retail; everyone
is looking to accomplish the project; the look will have to be
adjusted the cost of the historic theater has led to tonight ;
Development Services has come up with a way to handle costs; money
will have to be taken from elsewhere to fund the renovation project
if the 60 days do not prove successful; that he would not support
general fund money for the project or lowering the contingency
budget he does not support Option 5 because he does not want to
can the project.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he voted against the bonds because
it was putting the cart before the horse and the true cost of the
project were not understood; now the City is trying to pick up the
pieces and realizes there are no funds; perhaps everyone could be
happy with just having the historic theater.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the project has to have a contingency
fund to go forward; staff has included a contingency fund she
would not support a project without a healthy contingency fund of
15 to 20%; that she is in favor of the 60 day negotiation period
because the City will have learned valuable information about the
historic theater even if there is no contract at the end of the
period; gathering additional information is a good thing;
negotiating does not commit the City to go forward; she has a
problem with Option 5 because she would not support acquiring the
historic theater without having a plan; the City should not be
stuck with a piece of property without the knowledge of whether the
property can be developed economically; the timeframe for acquiring
the theater is sooner than alternatives could be created if the
project is rejected.
Chair Johnson stated the 60-day time period is reasonable after the
time and effort that has been spent; that she supports the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is that an opportunity to
review other options would be missed by allowing 60-days to
negotiate; a 15% contingency might not be enough for the historic
theater project value engineering might not work and other options
should be reviewed to determine how existing funding can complete
the entire project; all of the funding might have to go to
renovating the a $7 million loan is included because
enough money was not bonded. other options should be reviewed
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,8,"addresses.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was ACI's generated Contract
revenue, to which the Public Works Director responded $12
million dollars.
Councilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with the lien
process; Public Works should not be involved with the process
too early.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with
the exception of the three residents who communicated issues to
Council and direction for Public Works to address the three
cases on an individual basis.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-326) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda (submitted handout) , stated
six to twenty-four story condominiums are planned for Oakland's
Oak Street to Ninth Street project traffic on Interstate 880
would be impacted; questioned why the impact has not been
brought to public attention in Alameda; exempting Measure A at
Alameda Point would increase density and change Alameda Measure
A does not interfere with the City's ability to develop housing
at Alameda Point; the term ""exemption"" is vague urged not
placing an exemption on the ballot because the campaign would be
heavily financed by developers who want to build condominiums on
the other side of the estuary.
(06-327) Michael John Torrey, Alameda (submitted handout) ,
discussed the National Rifleman's Association and gun laws.
(
06-328 - ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, commended Council and staff for
making Alameda a great place to live; noted Police Captain Brock
stopped a bike thief on Park Street while off duty.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-329) Mayor Johnson stated she attended the Mayor's
Conference in Las Vegas the Conference was informative; she
learned about significant nationwide issues in other cities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JULY 5, 2006- - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present :
Councilmember/Board Members/Commissioners
Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-359CC/06-039CIC)
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting
held on June 20, 2006, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on June 20, 2006. Approved.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the minutes.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-360CC/06-040CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel
Legal Services and staffing options.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated she was reluctant to add positions; the
Administrative Management Analyst's duties are a Council priority;
she does not want to increase staff, but there is a rational for
the position; freezing positions was not done strategically in the
past; expanding the number of employees is not the intended
direction even if the  ouncil/Commission decides to fill the
position; reviewing staffing levels is a long-term process.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he has
concerns about filling the position; the task should be handled by
various departments. he is still working through the process of
where the position sits; he prefers to have the position closer to
the operational side; he is concerned with the job title;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,8,"longer guarantee period is highly unlikely; provisions need to be
made.
Councilmember deHaan stated the likelihood of an agreement falling
apart would indicate a total disaster with the ferry service; the
WTA is an authority that should have some long standing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his biggest fear is that a 75,000
person city would take second place to larger surrounding cities ;
Alameda has the most need for a ferry system; he is concerned that
Alameda might get a trip reduction after seventeen years in favor
of adding an additional trip for another city; Alameda does not
have a chance of getting another bridge or tube; everything needs
to be done to ensure that Alameda's needs are on top of the pile.
Councilmember deHaan stated he feels that the City could keep
running the ferry services for the next five to ten years; the
question is how long the storm can be weathered and whether there
is a commitment from the State; the City could be stranded;
inquired whether any future legislation would strengthen the WTA's
position.
Mr. Castleberry responded he believes so; a significant amount of
funds are set aside for transit services in the November ballot
infrastructure bond that can provide emergency response during
recovery of a disaster; stated the details of the bond still need
to be worked out; the WTA believes the bond will be an investment
in the ferry service.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the WTA's annual budget.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA currently receives $3 million per
year for ongoing operations; another $3 million per year will be
available through Regional Measure 2 funds once operations begin
for South San Francisco; another $3 million per year will be
received when the Berkeley operation starts.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are funds for Alameda.
Mr. Castleberry responded there is approximately $6 million per
year in Regional Measure 2 funds for expanded service in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA is planning on taking
over other services, and whether the WTA is in negotiations with
other local authorities.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA is in discussions with the City
of Vallejo; the City of Tiburon has approached the WTA for help
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,8,"wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15%
contingency is adequate.
The Development Services Director responded staff recommends
reducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the
theater ; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions;
testing has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after
construction has started; she feels adequately protected.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set
aside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of
the budget now; inquired how the project would be funded.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
ideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to
retire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina
Village project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund
load; $2 million was given to the Library Project another $2
million has been used in the operation of the theater project;
staff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the
Library project be distributed back to the theater project; other
opportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the
Catellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land
proceeds.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End
generated all the bond funding.
The Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West
End.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing
further analysis of Scheme 2.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were
revisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes
need to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer
the project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and
provide for more leeway in case there is a problem.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan -
2. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore and Matarrese and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,8,"Commission to the Planning Board; one of the Transportation
Commission's responsibilities are to make recommendations to
Council, not the Planning Board; the Planning Board can weigh in on
what the Transportation Commission recommends ; Boards and
Commissions should feel free to bring items directly to Council;
Boards and Commissions could be copied on reports brought to
Council.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated
the Transportation Commission had quite a few recommendations and
concerns which should come to Council on a different track;
similarly, the EDC and Planning Board should come to Council on a
different track.
The City Manager stated the intent is to seek input from Boards and
Commissions and to bring concerns and recommendations back to
Council.
(06-398) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that tonight's Council meeting
could be viewed online through the streaming video process;
requested that the Information Technology Director explain the
streaming video process.
The Information Technology Director stated streaming video enables
people to watch Council meetings live on the internet; tonight's
meeting will be uploaded on the City's website at the end of the
meeting; agenda items can be viewed individually.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:40 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
8
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.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,2006-09-19,8,"Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed ordinance provides a
process so that a transit-firs policy can be brought to life; the
Webster Street bus stop bulb outs protrude out into the lane
closest to the sidewalk; the idea is to begin to build changes that
encourage mass transit and discourage automobile use; he likes the
philosophy behind the proposed ordinance; the City is moving in the
right direction.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated off-
street parking opportunities still need to be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog stated
the ordinance is proposed for introduction tonight.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff provide Council with an update
in six months; stated the ordinance can be refined as needed.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the matter should be
brought back to see how things are working to determine whether
modifications are needed; the proposed ordinance provides an
opportunity for interested retailers to come to the downtown areas.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(06-473) 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
Extinguishing Systems. Not introduced.
The Fire Marshal provided a Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of the current calculation.
The Fire Marshal responded the building's assessed value is
reviewed; stated currently a sprinkler system retrofit is triggered
if the permitted work exceeds 50% of the assessed value.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the new calculation would work.
The Fire Marshal responded the new calculation would be based upon
the International Code Council Building Evaluation Table; stated
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-10-03,8,"space commitment; he is intrigued with Councilmember Daysog's
suggestion regarding the first and second reading of the ordinance;
a legal opinion is necessary while the case is pending; he likes
the idea of a Task Force formalizing a community driven process;
the project's magnitude requires a Task Force in conjunction with
the Recreation and Park Commission; the planning process would be
long; he would like to see the planning process end when the City
takes control of the property.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Beltline is a great opportunity;
Jean Sweeney's efforts were instrumental in the process; requested
more detail on the $98,000 park planning cost; stated the process
was grassroots in nature; the community helped to lessened the
burden.
Councilmember Daysog suggested that the motion address starting the
process, including the first reading of the ordinance, and
addressing the legal issues.
The City Attorney suggested adopting a resolution expressing the
Council's intent to rezone the property to open space, which is
consistent with the voter's Measure E direction, as soon as the
City receives the deed; stated said resolution would not pose any
threat to the pending lawsuit against the City regarding possible
inverse condemnation.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with the City Attorney; stated the
community would understand that the City is moving forward but is
being careful.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) allocate funds from Open Space fund and
designate said funds for the purchase of the Beltline, 2) begin the
community planning process with the recommendation that the process
be community driven with a Task Force that would work in
conjunction with the Recreation and Park Commission; and 3) prepare
a resolution that shows Council's intent to rezone the property
upon obtaining the deed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore suggested including the dwelling unit fund.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include the dwelling
unit tax would augment the funds as described in the staff report.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
* * *
(06-500) Resolution No. 14020, ""Appointing Robert A. Bonta as a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-10-17,8,"Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the open space
requirement within the 4.6 acres under R-4.
Mayor Johnson stated she is not prepared to support the project
under R-4; inquired what would be the open space requirement under
R-2.
The Supervising Planner responded open space requirements vary;
stated each unit must provide 600 square feet of open space under
R-2, 500 square feet under R-3, and 400 square feet under R-4.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the typical unit per gross
acre under R-2.
The Supervising Planner responded the Marina Cove development was
zoned R-4/PD; stated the lot sizes average approximately 3,500 to
4,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how many dwelling units there would
be per gross acre, to which the Supervising Planner responded the
Marina Cove development has approximately 12 units per gross acre.
Councilmember Daysog stated he initially had concerns with the
Marina Cove development, but the development is getting better.
The Supervising Planner stated a variety of different densities
have been approved using R-4/PD; the open space per unit
requirement varies from zone to zone.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council action could be
broken down into two components; stated one component would be to
rezone a portion of the parcel to match the General Plan and the
other would be to deny a General Plan Amendment.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the General Plan calls for a ten-
acre or more Estuary Park running 300 feet from the shore from the
Estuary south, specifies mixed-use, and also specifies that there
should be capacity for 300 residential units in the remaining
parcels north of Clement Avenue and the two parcels south of
Clement Avenue.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the General Plan language states up
to 300 units; stated the paperwork states 300, but the General Plan
states up to 300 units.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified that he stated capacity for 300
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,8,"and Congressional legislation staff.
Councilmember deHaan stated another issue is time extension.
The Housing Authority Executive Director stated staff has been
working on a WRDA amendment that includes a no-cost conveyance,
studies to review the cost to retrofit the Fruitvale Avenue
Railroad Bridge, transferring the property to the City, property
owners or an entity created either by the City or the Homeowners
Association.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a summary report be brought
back to Council: stated a lot of options have been discussed; he
wants to hear what the residents have to say and evaluate the
options; the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for maintaining
the waterway and the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge the
Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge has not been maintained if it is
not working; the City needs to be compensated for deferred
maintenance; retrofitting costs will be large; said costs should
not be born by the City for receiving the transfer and should be
put in front of Congressional delegates.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received a list of sunken vessels:
requested an update on outstanding obstructions in the Estuary
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Army Corps of Engineers
spell out the width and depth criteria that would be maintained in
the Estuary stated obligations need to be spelled out.
The City Manager stated that all concerns would be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the next briefing would take
place, to which the City Manager responded the beginning of the
year.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval 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. ]
( *06-556 - ) Minutes of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting
held on November 14, 2006. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,8,"George Phillips, Alameda Boys and Girls Club, thanked Council and
City staff for recognizing the importance of a partnership with the
Boys and Girls Club for the youth facility; stated he welcomes any
opportunity to receive help from the City.
Liz Varela, Building Futures with Women and Children, thanked
Council and City staff for supporting the Midway Shelter's program.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Social Services Human Relations Board
(SSHRB) ; stated the SSHRB works with non-profits to make CDBG
distribution recommendations to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated Blight Busters fund a program to clear
blighted properties in redevelopment areas; inquired whether
picking up trash is included; stated there is trash in the Webster
Street Tube and at the entrance to Alameda; inquired whether said
area would be eligible.
The Development Services Director responded the program is for
capital projects and involves demolition; the proposal is to take
down as many as four blighted Alameda Point structures.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-594)
Ordinance No. 2955, ""Approving and Authorizing the
Execution of a Lease Agreement Between the East Bay Regional Park
District, as Lessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, as an
Urgency Ordinance for a 66-Year Lease for the Development of the
San Francisco Bay Trail Project at Alameda Point. "" Passed.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, thanked Council and
City staff for efforts made.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the staff report made
reference to the USS Hornet Park or Hornet Park.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,8,"lanes; he knows nothing about installing a second public restroom
as discussed in 2003; the gas station was a controversial item in
2003; many supporters submitted a petition; there is a requirement
to find a site for a gas station; Safeway has submitted an
application for the current US Bank site; the City just released a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and the matter would be heard in the
next couple of months.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what about the development phases
for Buildings 300, 400 and 500.
The Planner III responded Building 300 is in a different phase than
Buildings 400 and 500; stated Building 300 was specifically
approved in 2003; Buildings 400 and 500 are in unapproved phases.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any conditions tied to the
approval of the buildings' design have not been met, to which the
Planner III responded not specifically.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any conditions have not
been met generally, to the Planner III responded he is not aware of
any.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired about the east/west walkway.
The Planner III responded the east/west walkway is to be
constructed within a certain phase; the City accepted the
Applicant's alternative; the Applicant feels that they have
complied with the condition; an enforceable condition could exist
if the Planning Board determines the administrative approval was an
in error; the sidewalk is being reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan stated not too many projects move forward
without looking at the entire project; anchor tenants were
identified in past projects; he is concerned with talking about
overall project elements while making incremental approvals; the
project has been done in good taste and is a great project;
questioned when the project would be reviewed as a whole.
Mayor Johnson stated the big issue is the east/west sidewalk; the
Applicant should not be punished because the former Acting Planning
Director administratively altered the condition; a lot of work is
still to be done at the Towne Center the Shoreline and Otis Drive
waterfront parcels are not within the area owned by Harsch
Investments; the Planning Board and community were distressed that
the Towne Center had a fifteen-year improvement plan back in 2003
it was unfortunate that there were only five Planning Board members
present at the November meeting and a different five in December ;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,8,"any functionality beyond architectural diversity.
The Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two
additional rooms.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third
story into the roofline.
The Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant
on roof design.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the
third-story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is
directed to do.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.
Buckley's examples.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in
the condition.
Mayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the
changes explicit; stated the design changes are significant
inquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning
Board for review.
The Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the
Applicant stated residential guidelines do not address new three-
story buildings, only additions.
Mayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.
The Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where
the third floors go from side to side; one side has a three-story
wall and the other side has a two-story wall in the current design;
the third-floor pop-up would be closer to the street.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.
The Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.
Councilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the
Murano project design.
The Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go
back to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,8,"balance of Fiscal Year 2006-2007.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
tonight's hearing was for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council is being requested to
approve funding for the listed public services, to which the Base
Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to do something for the Teen
Center.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated information
would be provided to Council in April.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $15,000 could be better spent
on existing public services.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some other
public services were augmented, such as BANANAS, Inc. and the Red
Cross.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager continued with the
Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Cyndy Wasko, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB)
President, commented on the SSHRB's recommended service needs and
funding allocation.
Priscilla Kindley, Alameda, spoke about the difficulty that low-
income families face in securing affordable housing in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Kindley follow up with the
Assistant City Manager.
Noel W. Folsom, Homeless Network Chair, urged Council to follow the
SSHRB's recommendations.
The Assistant City Manager stated the federal government has cut
back on Section 8 housing; Alameda has fewer vouchers than the
demand.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
(07-058) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-20,8,"Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. Adopted.
(07-086) Resolution No. 14070, ""Amending City of Alameda
Resolution No. 13937 to Change the Timing of Compliance for the
Final Lighting and Signage Plan Condition of Approval for Design
Review DR-5-0041, the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue,
from ""Prior to Issuance of Building Permit"" to ""Prior to the
Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy"". and to Change
the Timing of Compliance for the Final Lighting, Signage, and
Landscaping Plan Condition of Approval for Design Review DR05-0028,
the Proposed Parking Garage at 1416 Oak Street, from ""Prior to
Issuance of Building Permit"" to ""Prior to the Issuance of
a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. Adopted; and
(07-086A) Resolution No. 14071, ""Resolution Amending City of
Alameda Resolution No. 13907 to Change the Timing of Compliance for
the Queuing Plan Condition of Approval for Use Permit UP05-0018
from ""Prior to Issuance of Building Permit"" to ""Prior to the
Issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like the Planning Board to
have a full discussion on trees; she likes the idea of continuing
the sycamore trees along Central Avenue; tree spacing issues can be
worked out.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated planting
a different type tree would be contrary to the Master Tree Plan;
major streets should have the same type tree.
Councilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the Oak Street tree
treatment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated aphid infested trees are messy.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions with
direction that the Planning Board address tree selection.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other
developers have been given the opportunity to postpone discussions
in order not to delay design approval.
The Development Services Director responded it is very unusual to
have sign and landscaping designs done so early in the project.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-06,8,"provided any input.
The Public Works Director responded the school did not want to
state a preference.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether crosswalk changes had been made when
the Transportation Commission addressed the matter.
The Public Works Director responded some improvement were made ;
stated the triangular striping was not done; the Police Department
viewed the area differently because of the eastbound changes for
drop offs and pick ups at Lum School.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the drop off and pick up changes
were made after the matter was presented to the Transportation
Commission.
The Program Specialist II responded the changes were implemented in
August; stated the matter was brought to the Transportation
Commission in May and again in September or October; the Police
Department reassessed the matter and indicated that the changes
made a sufficient difference.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how a bus driver would determine whether a
person was waiting for a bus rather than waiting to cross or pick
up a child.
Mr. Pujol responded there would be an off set between the bus stop
pole and the crosswalk.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether buses stopped frequently at
Sandcreek Way before, to which Mr. Pujol responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he walks in the area twice a week;
efforts have been made to improve safety; crossing the street is
still a chore; he prefers to cross at Grand Street or Willow
Street; having a marked crosswalk at Pond Isle would provide a
false sense of security; ridership is encouraged; inquired why the
Express W goes down Shoreline Drive if Otis Drive has high
ridership; stated the 63-line goes down Otis Drive because of run
time; something is missing in the equation; all options should be
reviewed; he cannot support adding additional stops.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see placing the bus
stop at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive; he is not worried about bus
drivers; car drivers have been the cause of accidents involving
children; he would be in favor of the Pond Isle bus stop except for
the question of whether Pond Isle is the right place for a bus
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-20,8,"February; three-month projections add to the amount i reserves need
to be in the neighborhood $250,000 to $300,000.
The City Manager clarified that Councilmember Gilmore was referring
to the amount that would be needed for the end of the year.
The Finance Director stated $79,000 would be needed at the end of
the year.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal for a balance budget needs to be
implemented as soon as possible.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a motion needs to be made to
set the operating reserve fund.
The Finance Director responded that an additional clause could be
added to the existing resolution stating that an $80,000 operating
reserve be expended from the unrestricted fund balance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether language could be added stating that
the unrestricted fund balance is now restricted.
The Finance Director responded said matter could be addressed as
part of the budget.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether depreciation is part of the
$79,000.
The Finance Director responded depreciation is added into the
expenditure and then taken out in order to get the net gain or loss
without depreciation.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether $80,000 is a conservative amount if
fee increases are approved, to which the Finance Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore moved adoption of resolution with direction
to add language: 1) referencing the Golf Commission and 2) setting
a $79, operating reserve fund; and approval of direction to have
directed restricted funds addressed when the budget is presented.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07-131) Resolution No. 14078, ""Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 by Changing Various Chuck Corica Golf Complex Rates. ""
Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,8,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-157) Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated that bus shelter
maintenance has improved thanked the Public Works Department for
all the hard work.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-158) Mayor Johnson introduced Interim Fire Chief Jim Reed.
The Interim Fire Chief stated it is a pleasure to serve the City of
Alameda.
(07-159) Vice Mayor Tam requested a status report on the City
Treasurer and County Auditor meeting to review of the City's
investment policy.
(07-160) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the Lobby Day
session with the Alamedan's for Better Schools on March 28 in
Sacramento; she met with Senator Perata's staff; she and Mayor
Johnson were able to talk to Senator Torlakson regarding funding
equalizations for schools, which is a high priority for the
Legislature; there appears to be bipartisan support on the part of
Assemblyman Guy Houston to advance legislation to address
equalization issues.
(07-161) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Towne Centre
Old Navy grand opening would be on Thursday.
(07-162) Councilmember deHaan requested a Council review of the
Planning Board's decision to establish an Ad Hoc Committee to
address Measure A.
The City Manager stated that Council could request a review of the
Planning Board decision within ten days the matter would need to
come back within the next three Council meetings; the action would
be suspended in the meantime.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the matter would come back to Council,
to which the City Manager responded in May.
(07-163) louncilmember Matarrese stated that he requested the City
Manager to review the Governor's budget and the affect on public
transportation, particularly AC Transit; discussions have involved
cutting operational funds to transit districts; he would like
Council to deliberate on whether to consider a resolution to make
sure AC Transit is fully funded.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-17,8,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance is the same
as State law and would allow for City enforcement without
prosecution from the District Attorney's office.
The Police Lieutenant responded the District Attorney's office
would still prosecute; stated the proposed ordinance is slightly
different and more specific than the Harbors & Navigation Code
sections the District Attorney's office is uncomfortable with how
the Harbors & Navigation Code applies to the City's situation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance requirements
are similar to the Harbors & Navigation Code requirements, to which
the Police Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how commercial vessels and barges
would be affected.
The Police Lieutenant responded the proposed ordinance would apply
to all vessels; stated commercial boaters do not cause problems;
Maritime law holds all boaters responsible for individual damage.
Councilmember deHaan stated the ferry exceeds five-miles per hour.
The Police Lieutenant stated the Alameda Ferry Terminal is the only
dock in the area and does not infringe on any private marinas.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the proposed ordinance would
provide a ticketing process that would be enforceable.
The Police Lieutenant stated the ability to write tickets has
always existed; the problem is that none of the citations are being
prosecuted.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the fines would be paid to the City
under the proposed ordinance.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a copy of
the adopted ordinance would go to the County; a bail schedule would
be created; the City would receive a portion the fine.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the fine would recapture some of
the costs associated with the Police Officer's time, to which the
Police Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager requested clarification on the affects that the
sailboats would have.
The Police Lieutenant stated very little wake is produced when a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-01,8,"The City Manager responded May 15; noted there is an Appeal as well
which will be on the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated the [previous] Call for Review is on the
Planning Board's decision to establish a committee to discuss
Measure A; further stated any Councilmember can request a Call for
Review, but needs to be clear about what is being called for
review.
Councilmember deHaan stated the other one [ formation of a Measure A
committee] is really a discussion, not a [Call for] Review because
the decision was not a variance or similar type of Planning Board
decision.
Mayor Johnson stated it is a Call for Review and has to be handled
as a Call for Review; inquired whether or not a Call for Review can
be stopped after a request is made; further inquired whether or not
the Council is required to take an action after a Call for Review
is requested.
The City Manager noted an Appeal has also been filed.
The City Attorney responded a Call for Review generally acts like
an Appeal, but is being called up by a Councilmember ; in this
particular case [formation of a Measure A committee] because an
Appeal has also been received that would be heard on the same
evening as what would have been a Call for Review, the two
processes would be duplicative; the items are going to be placed on
an agenda a little differently. there will be the Appeal and
possibly a discussion on the policy issue; a Call for Review should
come to Council the same as an Appeal, unless withdrawn.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter is procedural and should be placed
on an agenda for discussion; the Call for Review and Appeal
processes should be clear; inquired whether the ""discussion"" would
be on the Call for Review.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he believes the discussion is
on policy.
The City Attorney stated the Call for Review would appear under
Council Communications as a review of the overall policy; otherwise
there would be an Appeal and Call for Review as back-to-back agenda
items or combined [as one item].
Mayor Johnson stated the process should be clear; noted the matter
would not be heard if a Call for Review was cancelled due to an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 1, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-15,8,"effect the numbers being discussed if the intent were not to have
more housing units; the transportation corridor has become so much
more important; there is a situation with Alameda Landing--only
$400,000 was designated for remediation of transportation
corridors; Oakland is developing out which is inundating Alameda's
corridors; the Council would be remiss if the proper context is not
taken.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is stating that
more housing units should not be included if the Planning Board is
reviewing, for example, planning at the Base.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he is just telling about the
impact of traffic itself; stated no more housing started to be
discussed when the City lost the last developer ; reducing the
number of homes started being discussed more; the developer has
been told the City wants jobs out there [at Alameda Point] another
developer was just selected; there is time to review and
understand; the new developer is a new set of fresh eyes and will
bring a new dimension to it [Alameda Point development] ; there is
no urgency at this point in time; adaptive reuse has been talked
about; individuals have stated adaptive reuse cannot be done under
Measure A, but it can; it [development ] may not be as good under
Measure A as it could be, but it can be done; Cardinal Point is an
excellent example; needs can be met under Measure A; Alameda
Landing will include building housing above commercial space and is
Measure A compliant; Measure A is not the driving force; there is a
bigger problem--the constraints and opportunities facing the City.
Councilmember Matarrese stated several of Councilmember deHaan's
comments, such as the statement that the impacts are not known,
support the Planning Board action; the City is facing the largest
development, which is really reuse, in Alameda's history; the
development is probably the most important in the Bay Area and
every single option is worth review; the ground rules are
specifically to establish the facts on the limitations and benefits
of Measure A; it [the workshop] is to obtain public input the
deliverable is to provide a written account of the workshop that
will include facts that can be used in support of the Housing
Element and to provide the City Council with information for making
policy decisions; doing it [the workshop) now is fortuitous because
Alameda Point development is at least a year awayi Measure A has
been discussed every two years on a regular basis in the context of
political campaigns; taking the discussion outside the context of a
political campaign and making it fact based is good; that in
addition to the Housing Element, he would like to include the
transportation component, which is inextricably intertwined; the
forum should be facilitated by someone outside the City who is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 15, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-05,8,"closure for Labor Day; a direct mail campaign would be conducted
for the Harbor Bay and Fernside District areas offering a two-for- -
one free commute on the Harbor Bay Ferry or Alameda/Oakland Ferry.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether anything is being done for
the new development in Oakland, particularly the waterfront area.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a free ride
coupon and brochure were provided last year and would be repeated
this year.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired why there is a deferential in fuel costs
between the Harbor Bay Ferry and Alameda/Oakland Ferry; further
inquired whether bio-diesel is an option.
The Ferry Manager responded the two operators get fuel in a
different manner. stated the Alameda/Oakland Ferry has an
underground tank; the Harbor Bay Ferry receives fuel by truck,
which results in a ten to fifteen cent increase; the cost of bio-
diesel was approximately 50 cents per gallon higher several years
agoi now the cost of bio-diesel is within ten cents per gallon;
engine manufacturers have not agreed that the warranty protection
extends to operators who use bio-diesel.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether San Francisco received a warranty
from the engine manufacture.
The Ferry Manager responded Cummins requested that the Red and
White Fleet change from B20 bio-diesel to B10 bio-diesel; the Red
and White Fleet is in negotiations with Cummins to do a six-month
test to see the effect of the B20 bio-diesel; the quality and
consistency of bio-diesel is concerning.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Cummins has already agreed
to use warranted B10 bio-diesel in Red and White Fleet engines.
The Ferry Manager responded Red and White Fleet is in negotiations
with Cummins for a six-month trial.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the engines are under
warranty now, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that Table 1 shows an 18% increase in fuel
costs; inquired whether maintenance reductions would off set the
increase.
The Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative stated maintenance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 5, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,8,"ADJOURNMENT
(07 - 300)
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 8:32 p.m. in a moment of silence in honor of
Lieutenant Cranford and Ed Dankworth.
RECONVENED
Mayor Johnson reconvened the regular meeting at 8:33 p.m. to
consider the resolution appointing Bill Sonneman.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(07-301) - Resolution No. 14108, ""Appointing Bill Sonneman as
a
Member of the City Recreation and Park Commission. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:34 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
8
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-03,8,"Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether revenues could be used for property
improvements to meet the rent expectations.
The Development Services Director responded that she does not
expect that any of the revenues would go back to the private
development of the site; stated revenues would be used to expand
access to Tidelands areas; other properties could be bought or
improvements could be made to other Tidelands properties for public
benefit around the waterfront.
Mayor Johnson stated that the revenue could be used to improve the
Bay Trail.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the revenue could be
available for economic development and maritime job generation.
The Assistant City Manager responded revenues could be used for any
Tideland use, including ship building, navigation, fishing, and
other commercial activity.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether revenues could be used for
bulkhead improvements, to which the Assistant City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the property would look like at
the end of the lease.
The Development Services Director responded the lease has
safeguards requiring regular maintenance; the lease has a provision
requiring that there must be a cure to any obsolescence ten years
prior to the end of the lease; inquired whether an account is
required to be set aside.
Mr. Wetmore responded in the negative; stated the lease hold would
have an engineering evaluation at mid-lease; the City would choose
the engineer and do an inspection; the lessee is required to cure
any physical obsolescence to ensure that the slips are what they
should be for the remainder of the lease.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the slips life expectancy, to
which Mr. Wetmore responded over forty years.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether improvements would go through the
design review process.
The Development Services Director responded the lessee would be
required to go through the City's permitting process.
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-17,8,"to rethink the parking requirement for both conditional
permitted uses and permitted uses so that the rezoning must be
accompanied by the valuation.
Mayor Johnson stated that having the policy direction is a good
suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Services
Manager had recommended verbiage.
The Planning Services Manager stated language could be added to
include that non-residential uses are preferred along the truck
route; however, if residential uses are proposed along the truck
route, design must minimize impacts with truck routes; a parking
policy would be inserted in the guiding section regarding re-
examining the parking requirements to ensure there is adequate
parking for all sites, both permitted and conditionally
permitted uses; the Encinal Terminals height policy would be
moved to the guiding policy; the Planning Board's additional
language would be removed; the height would be described as a
number of feet [not stories) and would be comparable to the Wind
River buildings.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she wants to ensure that there is
consistency in the great strides to reduce the number of
vehicles through joint or shared parking programs in order to
avoid displacing waterfront property and maximizing public
access; she hopes that the issue is clear pervasively, not just
at the Del Monte site.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any proposals
for industrial use.
The Planning Services Manager responded industrial use proposals
are not coming in because of the loss of rail and shipping uses.
Mayor Johnson stated Harbor Bay Business Park has a better
opportunity for industrial because the Business Park provides
easy access off of Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated noticing was a concern for Alameda
Landing; staff should be vigilant to ensure that notification is
not limited to 300 feet of the existing neighborhoods.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-07,8,"markets; stated options include street pricing and a three-cent
[per gallon] discount for card holdersi one delivery is expected
per day the conditions of approval limit the delivery time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tank capacity could be
increased.
Mr. Paradise responded the proposed site would be a blending site;
stated blending would be done at the pump.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether it would be fair to say that
the proposed site would be a high-volume discount station, to which
Mr. Paradise responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed station would be
similar to the Nob Hill station.
Mr. Paradise responded that he is not aware of the average volume
for Nob Hill stations stated he thinks of Costco in terms of a
high-volume gas station; the current Nob Hill pricing is most
likely promotional.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many tankers are delivered to the
Dublin Safeway gas station.
Mr. Paradise responded said station could have one and a half to
two deliveries per day.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed gas station
would go over one tanker per day.
Mr. Paradise responded marketing research indicates the station
would receive one tanker per day.
Councilmember deHaan requested verification on the delivery hours.
Deborah Kartiganer, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson, Kawakami, stated the
conditions of approval state that Safeway would not have trucks
delivered to the site between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
to 6:00 p.m. during the weekdays and between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30
p.m. on weekends.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when trucks are moved normally.
Mr. Paradise responded trucks are moved twenty-four hours per day;
stated a load of fuel only leaves a terminal full for safety
reasons ; larger tanks provide a greater window [for delivery].
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
August 7, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-21,8,"Vice Mayor Tam stated that she supports the resolution. the Council
has a responsibility to speak on behalf of the community; Alameda
should add its voice to the chorus of the nation by asking federal
leaders to bring back federal dollars being spent on the war, bring
back precious resources in Iraq, and provide the best possible care
to veterans upon their return.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the
resolution does not just address the situation with the National
Guard leaving the City vulnerable in case of a disaster the
resolution also addresses the issue of the economic hardship that
the entire country will face as the bill comes due; federal funds
are tax dollars; the war is the wrong war at the wrong time the
war is costing Alameda directly; he does not want to look back in
ten to twenty years and say that Alameda sat and did nothing; he
has heard that Alameda will become a City like Berkeley Council
passed a resolution in 2003 to urge a diplomatic approach to
resolving the issue in Iraq before the country went to war; Alameda
did not turn into Berkeley the resolution would carry more weight
than Berkeley with the congressional delegation; read a portion of
the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the first year of the Iraq War had
the feeling of the Vietnam War the voters made a loud statement to
elected officials last year; Congress has changed; critical parts
have been added to the current resolution; Vietnam War veterans
were treated tragically; Alameda could have an opportunity to
provide former Coast Guard housing to returning veterans and their
families; he hopes the Hospital Board and Board of Education step
forward; withdrawal has a draw down period which takes a while;
steps need to be taken to move forward.
Mayor Johnson stated that now is the time for Alameda to weigh in
on the issue; the soldiers are from Alameda's community; the money
comes from Alameda taxpayers for the war; Alameda has a
responsibility to express its position on the war; the resolution
is very well stated; government needs to step up and support the
troops and returning veterans; she supports the resolution.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the war affects Alameda; one of
the country's proudest traditions is the right to speak out against
what government is doing from a grassroots position; supporting the
resolution will send a message to people in power that it is time
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
August 21, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-04,8,"Mayor Johnson stated that a Task Force could make recommendations
on ways to raise money to buy the land.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like Council to review the
minutes addressing establishment of a Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has to buy the land first.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like an Off Agenda report
on the goals of the Task Force.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council would discuss priority settings;
Estuary Park should be included as a priority.
The City Manager stated that staff would provide Council
information regarding the work plan and direction for Estuary Park.
(07-427) Marie Kaylar, Alameda, stated the audio signals at
Central Avenue and Broadway have an unbearable sound; the
neighborhood was not informed of the installation of the signals.
Mayor Johnson stated the Public Works Department is reviewing the
volume of the audio signals; inquired whether the audio signals can
be set at an acceptable volume.
Ms. Kaylar responded she spoke with the company that makes the
audio signals; stated information has been provided to the City
Engineer a neighbor conducted a survey that will be provided to
Council; a button would be a more acceptable option.
(07-428) James Wullschleger, Alameda, stated twenty-five audio
signals were purchased using Measure B funds; the neighborhood
tried to work with the City on the issue; the audio signals were
turned off and then turned back on a few weeks later; the neighbors
are excited that the audio signals have a manual activation button
option; the neighborhood requested to be included in the process;
buttons could be installed for $1,600 per intersection; the audio
signals get louder when trucks pass; a blind resident wants buttons
installed; requested that the audio signals be turned off for a
period of time in order to review the matter.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rest of the audio signals
have been installed.
The City Manager responded that she would provide a list of
signals; stated other audio signals will not be installed until the
matter is resolved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-11,8,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - September 11, 2007
Make less successful times more successful
Not just doing things the ""Alameda way"" - changing when it would be more effective
Erase perceptions about the City not being ""business friendly""
Work with residents to identify revenue opportunities
Educate residents on budget constraints
Use budget restraints to take a regional approach
Educate residents on how to participate and get involved in City government
Reach out to younger demographics; taking a different approach
Threats
Economic recession
Age of infrastructure
State-new legislative mandates, unfunded mandates
Crime trends-youth violence
Socio-economic factors that contribute to crime trends
Regional build-out (traffic)
Federal deficit
Natural disasters
Fiscal situation of school district
Viability of other institutions
Aging work force (""brain drain"")
Draft Citywide Objectives
The City Manager presented several draft Citywide objectives, which were developed by the
Executive Management Team to articulate the direction received by Council over the past
two years. The Council reviewed the draft objectives and, in some cases, suggested
modifications and additions. Shown below for each objective is the original draft language
proposed by the staff and, following that, any modifications or additions suggested by the
Council. Based on the suggestions from Council, revised objectives are shown in some
cases, which will be presented for consideration at the November workshop. Additionally,
based on the workshop discussion, a broad, overarching statement is proposed, which could
form the basis of a mission statement for the City. If desired, that will be added to the
agenda for the November workshop.
Objective 1:
Draft: Continue progress in the redevelopment of the former naval property.
Modification: None.
Objective 2:
Draft: Identify funding and develop master plans for providing and maintaining infrastructure
improvements.
Modification: None.
Objective 3:
Draft: Ensure the community's economic health.
Modification: Take measures to improve and promote the community's economic health.
Management Partners, Inc.
4",CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,8,"Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on the outcome of the
discussions with other vendors.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-454 - ) Resolution No. 14145, ""Appointing Reginald James to the
Social Service Human Relations Board. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(07-455) - Recommendation to accept a Grant from the Assistance to
the Firefighters Grant Program for $275,391 to develop and
administer a Technical Rescue Program and appropriate $68,848
to meet the Grant applicant 20% share requirement.
The Interim Fire Chief provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the funding source for the
$68,848, to which the City Manager responded the General Fund
reserve.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether additional funding would be
available in future years for on-going training, to which the
Interim Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Interim Fire Chief for doing an
outstanding job; presented the Interim Fire Chief with a City flag
and mug.
(07-456 - ) Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment and
Rezoning of an existing park/open space area of approximately 10. 77
acres. The site is located north of Singleton and Mosley Avenues
at 201 Mosley Avenue within the R-4-G, Neighborhood Residential
( Special Government) Zoning District;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-02,8,"Councilmember Matarrese stated Council heard the update; the public
needs to understand what is happening; workshops are a good way to
update the public and provide timelines.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of adopting the City of
Alameda Ferry Short Range Transit Plan with the stipulation that
workshops be conducted to inform the public on the legislation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that the
emergency portion needs to be flushed out; the emergency portion
was the driving force; noted new routes are being initiated.
The Public Works Director stated that the WTA is currently pursuing
an Oakland to South San Francisco route.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned with the legislation
being rushed; public workshops are being rushed; inquired whether
the workshop's point would be to synthesize the public's comments
in order to take a position or request the City's support of the
Bill in order to respond to the Legislature.
Mayor Johnson stated the purpose of the workshop would be to inform
the public.
The Public Works Director stated the workshop would educate the
public on the Bill; a WTA representative could be at the meeting to
answer questions; a Blue Ribbon Task Force was created to look at
the needs for emergency response from a ferry perspective and could
be the reason for the urgency of the bill.
Councilmember deHaan stated that [Blue Ribbon Task Force ] came from
the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Mayor Johnson stated AC Transit expressed interest in operating the
ferries at one point.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the WTA was formed, to which the
Deputy City Manager responded 1999.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is very supportive of regional
cooperation and opportunities to leverage assets with other
regional agencies; the question is one of process; inquired whether
the City was consulted about the legislation during discussions on
the formation of an emergency transit authority.
The Public Works Director responded that changes were made to the
legislation a couple of days before passage.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-16,8,"issuance of the tax exempt bond as part of the Joint Powers
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the added language would boot strap the
two resolutions sufficiently.
Councilmember Gilmore amended the motion to include that future
documents prominently indicate that the $4 million be returned
first.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote -5.
(07-506) Resolution No. 14153, ""Encouraging the Oakland City
Council to Revoke the Union Pacific Railroad Permit for the
Fruitvale/Glascock Spur. Adopted.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked staff for working on the issue and keeping
Council informed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he attended a meeting hosted by
Oakland Council President De la Fuente at the Fruitvale Transit
Village; fifty or sixty people attended; a lot of questions are
unanswered; serious problems in getting on and off the Island could
result from running trains across the spur; contacting federal
Representative Pete Stark and senators would be worthwhile to have
them understand the City's predicament.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Union Pacific Railroad has been
in communications with the City of Oakland.
The Deputy City Manager responded the City of Oakland tried to
contact the Railroad; stated that she does not know whether the
City of Oakland has been successful.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the resolution; the
resolution should be communicated to the Union Pacific Railroad.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmembe: Kernighan's office is
involved.
The Deputy City Manager responded in the negative; stated the issue
does not affect Councilmember Kernighan's district; President De La
Fuente's staff advised her that Councilmember's are respectful of
issues going on in individual districts and thought that
Councilmembers would be supportive of Council President De La
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-06,8,"Counci lmember Matarrese stated the matter would have been reviewed
by the Economic Development Commission under the normal processi
the staff reports states that the incremental additional revenue
will be spent within the Park Street Business District, which is
not reflected in the resolution; the resolution does not have an
effective date and is like a rough draft.
The City Attorney stated resolutions usually do not have an
effective date; lead time is needed to change out the meter heads ;
an additional action would be needed to earmark the increment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether fund use was an important
factor for PSBA to support the fee increase, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether PSBA would support the
increase without said condition, to which the Development Services
Director responded she would need to go back and ask.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $900,000 of parking meter
funds was put into the parking structure.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
there is a commitment for $250,000 per year for debt service; a
lump sum was not taken.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think that designating meter
revenue to certain areas should be considered; a precedent should
not be set.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the rate increase would be confined
to the area between Lincoln Avenue and Encinal Avenue, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether rate increases would be reviewed
for other areas once the Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) study is
complete.
The Development Services Director responded that she is not sure
whether the WSA study would recommend parking fee increases
anywhere else; stated WSA has not identified any other high demand
areas ; parking problems arise over time as parking demand
increases.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she sees nothing wrong with using
the incremental revenue generated from raising the parking fees in
the Park Street Business District and spending the money in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,8,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
Combine #4 and #6
Add something about workforce
Planning and development
Concern about the items being too specific
Department VS. citywide (Council) priorities - currently seems disproportionately a few
depts.
Need to clarify structure of objectives to priorities/work plan; what is the framework;
are the ""City Objectives"" actually ""policy objectives""
Tie priorities back to budget
City Council Referral Procedures
The purpose of this discussion was to create an orderly process through which Council
members and staff can be clear about work that is being requested, whether the work can be
done in a reasonable period of time, and whether it is consistent with Council direction. There
are times where one Councilmember will have an interest in the staff exploring something or
preparing a report on an issue; staff is not always clear about whether the one
Councilmember is representing the interests of the entire Council. Since staff has a full work
program, it means re-directing staff from existing priorities and Council direction. This can
inadvertently re-arrange Council priorities. Additionally, during the year, needs will emerge,
requiring new attention, and it means we need to be able to modify our priorities.
Therefore, the purpose of this portion of the agenda was to create a process that Council and
staff can follow. Management Partners prepared a memo, which described the process used
by several cities that have created methods of handling Council requests. The memo was
reviewed at the workshop and a discussion then took place. The question posed for
discussion was: ""When new issues arise from a Councilmember, what are our options for
dealing with them?""
Several methods are used by other cities to determine Council direction on a Council
member's request, including:
1. If the request can be handled in approximately one hour, and it is consistent with
current Council policy and direction, the City Manager can assign it to be done. This
is referred to as the ""one-hour rule.""
2. A Councilmember prepares a ""Council referral"" which is written in advance and
placed on Council Agenda for discussion.
3. The City Manager gives a verbal or written report on what would be required to
handle the request.
4. There is no change in policy or practices without Council direction.
5. Copies of information provided to one Council member goes to all Council members
Council and EMT Comments:
Management needs to better clarify the impact or time involved to respond to a request.
The impact of a request needs to be part of the Council's consideration of the request
from a Councilmember. What are the costs in staff time, dollars, impact on other
priorities, other costs?
Routine operational items should not be affected by a new process (i.e. citizen
complaints). A new process should only apply to special requests or new initiatives,
since we're talking about impacts on or shifting of priorities or resources.
Management Partners, Inc.
5",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,8,"the data collection.
The Police Chief stated the existing software is fifteen years old
and does not interface with the Records Management System; the
proposed system would interface with the Records Management System
and the court system throughout the State; driver's license status,
warrants, etc. can be checked by swiping the license; the
electronic interface would help make court processing quicker; the
Police Department has collected data on traffic stops for years;
the proposed software would link said information.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether said data exists or is something
that the Police Officer enters upon a traffic citation stop.
The Police Chief responded Police Officers enter data for every
stop; stated information would be tracked through the electronic
citation software system.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the existing software is fifteen years
old; she is troubled by the fact that there is only one vendor who
makes the software that interfaces with the current system in a way
that is acceptable to the Police Department; inquired whether there
would be trouble with interfacing in the future if the existing
software is replaced.
The Police Chief responded the proposed software would do things
that the old software does not; stated the existing Records
Management System and computerized dispatch system are state-of
the-art and provide interfacing; court system interfacing is new;
other vendors have not been able to interface with the court
system; the citation component would interface where previous
systems did not; the system is cutting edge and is beyond what
other vendors are providing; the system meets all criteria and has
been tried by Alameda County and City of Oakland.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the new system would be an
add-on or replacement, to which the Police Chief responded a
replacement.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be annual costs.
The Police Chief responded upgraded maintenance costs would be
included in the grant.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the length of coverage under the
current fee.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,8,"the agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with Council
communicating with staff that she was on the Council when Council
voted to get rid of the Council-staff communication rules
established by a prior City Manager the Council has to be careful
with individual Councilmembers directing staff; that she does not
see how a matter can be placed on the agenda without numerous staff
hours being spent.
The City Attorney stated Council cannot legally take a consensus
action regarding items raised under Council Communications because
there has not been a description on the agenda and the public does
not know what may be brought up; the purpose of the formalized rule
is to provide an opportunity to get the public involved in the
discussion; if the matter is submitted ahead of time, it can be
placed on the agenda under the new section with a sufficient
description; there will not be a staff report yet so staff
resources will not have been expended; however, the title can be a
sufficient description so that the public understands what will be
considered, Council can take an action that night, there could be
no action taken, or Council could request a formal staff report and
more information at a future meeting; the purpose is to permit a
legal action to be taken and allow public participation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said explanation clarifies the
matter and removes the chance of it becoming a gag rule; the matter
can be discussed and a vote can be taken, which cannot occur under
Council Communications the proposal enhances the ability to get
something from a single Councilmember heard in a fashion noticed to
the public without running into the legal problem of providing
direction, even by consensus, on a matter that was not on the
agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated what the Council is doing today is
bringing the matter as an agenda item; questioned why a separate
agenda section is needed to do it.
The City Attorney stated the Council has never violated the Brown
Act during Council Communications because a vote has never been
called for; the City Manager has voluntarily placed a matter on the
agenda or provided information upon seeing an interest from one or
more Councilmembers; the process is being formalized to provide
greater public participation; the matter is a follow up of the
issue addressed at the workshop.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he pulled the February 6, 2006
minutes regarding the war resolution and there was an official
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-18,8,"(07-593 ) Recommendation to accept the Corica Golf Complex
Operational Review and authorize staff to begin the process to
secure a long-term operator for the Golf Complex. Continued to
January 2, 2008.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(07-594) Jonathan
Stuart,
LaRouche
Political
Action
Committee, (submitted handout) i discussed foreclosures.
(07-595) Shawn VanLeevwen, LaRouche Political Action Committee,
discussed the Home Owners and Bank Protection.
(07-596) Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated that the Public Works Department
has always been responsive to inquiries.
(07-597 - ) John Michael Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone happy
holidays.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07-598 ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Youth Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Michelle Blackman, Hannah Bowman, Jordan
Flores, Ilya Pinsky, Anjuli Sastry, Priscilla Szeto, Ben Ulrey, and
Angela Sterling Vick.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:36 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
8
December 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-02,8,"and what the City can make is made on the backs of the benefits
provided to employees; he reviewed labor cost increases versus
raises given to each bargaining unit; benefits are the issue;
someone will not have health insurance without benefits he would
like to see a breakdown to illustrate hard facts; San Mateo can
produce a round for $28; the issue should be studied; everyone
agrees that City facilities suffer from deferred maintenance and
that [deferred maintenance] was how the City was able to transfer
the PILOT and ROI to the City's General Fund; the Golf Commission
did a great job in pulling together top priorities; a Master Plan
is needed before moving forward with anything.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated it is important to follow up and explore the Golf
Commission's ideas regardless of an RFP; money should be allocated
for a Master Plan; the golfing public needs to have a better
understanding of transfers from the Golf Fund to the General Fund;
the General Fund pays for services such as public safety,
libraries, and parks; currently, there is no money in the General
Fund to run the Golf Enterprise as a public service; a community
discussion may be instructional to find out whether the community
feels that the ability to play golf Is important enough to be
willing to pay increased fees or more taxes; she is not advocating
more taxes but the matter should be discussed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was at the Mif Albright Course
on Christmas Eve; seeing fathers play with sons and daughters was
rewarding; the Junior Golf Program is a model; there is no
substitute for good management challenges are there; formulating
priorities is rewarding; the banquet facility is all important.
Mayor Johnson inquired what percentage of golfers are full fee,
non-resident golfers, to which the Recreation and Park Director
responded that he did not know.
Mayor Johnson stated that a lot of non-resident golfers have been
lost.
The Recreation and Park Director stated non-resident golfers have
gone down from 21% to 15.5%.
Mayor Johnson stated full fee golfers are not going to pay to play
under current conditions; a balanced budget is needed while taking
time to review the issue; Council needs to direct staff to review
the budget; loosing $40,000 to $50,000 per month is eating away at
the reserve; the reserve was not set aside for operation but was
set aside for capital improvements; the fund cannot continue to
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,8,"historic. This house has retained some historical characteristics
and could be remodeled and returned to is original Colonial Revival
style""; the same logic can apply to any place in the City the
house is nondescript because of alterations; the finding does not
point to historic significance for the house; he cannot see how the
appeal cannot be overturned.
Councilmember deHaan stated certain design requirements would be
necessary inquired whether compatibility with the rest of the
neighborhood would be required.
The City Attorney responded there would be an opportunity later on
to pass on the design review should the Applicant come forward with
a design to rebuild the house; stated the matter cannot be
conditioned tonight.
Mayor Johnson stated the Applicant should not assume that she can
rebuild to the desired size if the appeal is overturned; size and
scale within the neighborhood is very important; bad mistakes
should not be repeated.
The Applicant questioned why she would be denied when similar
structures are being built.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the Applicant provide a list of said
structures.
The Applicant stated that she is not exceeding the height of the
existing structure; the footprint is not much bigger than the
existing house; there do not seem to be any direct guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated design guidelines include criteria of
compatibility with the neighborhood and size and scale.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a process is in place that has a set
of defined code requirements for setbacks, height, and design
guidelines.
Mayor Johnson stated guidelines have not been appropriately applied
in the past.
Councilmember deHaan cautioned staff to ensure that proper
guidelines are applied; stated the area is zoned for duplexes.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the demolition permit cannot be tied
to what or what may not be built on the lot; the HAB finding is too
broad and there would be no demolition anywhere in the City if
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-05,8,"Foundation (NGF) has nationwide knowledge regarding trends that
would be helpful.
Mayor Johnson stated NGF has provided an operational analysis;
master planning is requested now.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that Council wants NGF to review Golf
Commission recommendations; information is needed to decide the
future of the Golf Course the community needs to decide what the
Golf Course should look like.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Request for Proposal
(RFP) amount is included [in the $80,000], to which the Recreation
and Park Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated
many things will be brought to the table; $80,000 is expensive for
a follow up Contract; inquired whether $80,000 was the amount of
the bid.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated said amount
includes an analysis of Golf Commission recommendations, such as
reconfiguration.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the cost could be more than $80,000
if staff did the work; $80,000 is a very small price to pay for a
multi-million dollar operation; NFG would build on the suggestions
and assessment of what is wrong with the current operation; the
issue is too important to penny pinch.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated that
she agrees with the Ms. Sullwold regarding the $80,000 figure; but
does not think that there is a choice given the nature of future
decisions.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-056) Recommendation to adopt the Legislative Program for 2008.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the Legislative Program is a good thing to do
and provides an opportunity to react more immediately to federal
and State issues; she would like to have the Program updated on a
regular basis.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council Meeting
8
February 5, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-19,8,"Mayor Johnson inquired what are the plans for the reserve vehicle,
to which the Fire Chief responded the 1988 van would be considered
surplus and sold once a new vehicle is purchased; the current
Suburban would become the reserve vehicle.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased the Highlander will
be considered because it is 30% more fuel efficient, which would
provide a real cost savings.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Tahoe would have a
special warranty or a regular, new car warranty, to which the Fire
Chief responded a regular, new car warranty.
Mayor Johnson stated adding $50,000 of equipment would be of
concern in case the vehicle turned out to be a lemon.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is not sure whether the
equipment will work on a Toyota; the information needs to be
reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the City
Manager to work with the Fire Chief and Public Works Director to
explore alternatives to the Tahoe Hybrid, which include, but are
not limited to, other vehicles in the same class, such as the
Toyota Highlander and Ford Escape, and bring back a proposal.
Councilmember deHaan stated considering longevity is important.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Tam noted that she was not trying to focus on the Toyota
Highlander or take apart the issue, however, she wants to instill
the message that the Council is very serious about cost containment
and exploring all options.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-082) Recommendation to receive report on the Animal Shelter.
The Police Chief gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated a past problem was people did not understand
the policies and procedures; inquired whether the policies and
procedures would be posted on the City's website and made available
to the public.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-04,8,"fatigue; inquired whether Councilmember deHaan has a priority
preference.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he did not view the issue in
terms of priorities.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that his top priority is the formal
bidding requirements because the matter is emergency preparednessi
Item 4 [governing the elected position of Auditor], Item
5
[governing the elected position of Treasurer], and Item 6
[eliminating ""transportation"" from Article XII, Section 12-1(A) - are
clean up items.
Councilmember deHaan excused himself from the meeting at 8:58 p.m.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that her top priority is that
contracts be in writing.
The Senior Assistant City Attorney stated that there was a range of
two to eight Charter revisions per ballot over a thirty-year
period.
Bill Smith, Alameda, stated that he supports the recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the Charter references the
practice of requiring bonds for individual performance; the
language is obsolete; the practice is to protect the City by
carrying an insurance policy; inquired whether a provision should
be added requiring that the City have appropriate insurance if
references to bonds are eliminated.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the liability insurance would be for
employees.
The Senior Assistant City Attorney responded the City carries crime
insurance which cover instances such as embezzlement or someone
absconding with checks.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has an insurance policy, to
which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has used the insurance
policy, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney responded that
she did not know.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-18,8,"dioxide when the gas leaks into the air.
On the call for the question, by consensus, the motion carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-121) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code
by
Repealing Section 5-30 (Filming Activities) in Its
Entirety, and Replacing It with A Successor Section to Article II
(Permits) of Chapter V (Licenses and Permits) Making Changes to the
Procedures, Regulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming
Activities Within the City of Alameda. Introduced.
Dave Duffin, Film Commission Chair, stated the recommended changes
would help the permitting process.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-122) - Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14189,
""Adopting General Plan Amendment, PLN07-0077, Amending Section 2.5
Retail Business and Services of the Land Use Element of the City of
Alameda General Plan. Adopted.
The Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponent (In favor of resolution) : Patricia Curtin, Harsh
Development.
Neutral Bill Smith, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alameda Towne Center and Alameda
Landing concerns are reflected in the staff report; inquired how
sales leakage would be controlled through zoning and the Municipal
Code.
The Planning Services Manager responded Policy 2.5.k states ""pursue
and encourage new retail development that is consistent with the
retail policies of the General Plan and Economic Development
Strategic Plan; primarily serves the community or addresses a high
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 18, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-01,8,"improvements"" as a top priority; suggested the priority be
consolidated [with budget review and tracking].
Councilmember deHaan stated Item 28 regarding GASB-45 is part of
the budget and could also be included [with budget review and
tracking], as well as review of the compensation system [Item 14].
Mayor Johnson stated that all the items fit into the third
overriding policy objective [improve and promote economic health] ;
requested that the policy objectives be numbered.
Councilmember deHaan stated the labor agreement with public service
should be included, too.
Ms. Perkins stated one suggestion is to combine some of closely
aligned projects, such as budget review [Item 18] and strengthening
revenues [Item 17].
Mayor Johnson stated said items are simply running the City and
should not be considered projects; there is not a start and finish.
The City Manager stated said activity is a priority.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there should be a way to accelerate
planning projects or recruitments that will generate revenue in
order to meet the policy objective.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps the third policy objective [ improve
and promote economic health] should be the number-one overriding
policy and other policies be listed under it; everything needs to
be focused on and considered the long-term and short-term economic
health of the City.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he took said policy as applying to
all departments.
Ms. Perkins stated the policy objective could be placed first
because it is so important; the items being prioritized are
actions.
Mayor Johnson stated people will understand the sense of the
Council's priorities better if put in diagram form; suggested the
economic issue be a curve line with all other policies issues
underneath; stated everything that is done needs to consider the
City's long- and short-term economic health.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a certain level of service is
desired; the connection between the level of service and what it
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-15,8,"(RRD) i Patricia Gannon, RRD (submitted letters) i Gerry Long, RRD i
May Johnston, Alameda; Corrine Lambden, RRD (submitted comments) ;
Michael Robles Wong, Community of Harbor Bay Isle Owners
Association; Melissa Plaisance, Headlands Homeowners Association:
Richard Rutter, Alameda; Annie Rutter, Alameda; Chad Otten,
Appellant (submitted petition) ; Brenda Harrigan, Alameda; Anda
Bockis, Alameda; Ewart Wetherill, Alameda. Ignacio Goyret, Alameda;
Nancy Ross, Alameda: and Anna Faria-Poynter, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Art Autorino, Alameda; Mel
Grant, SFX Preferred Resorts; Eric Ibsen, Alameda; John McManus,
Cushman and Wakefield; Scott Newman, SRM Associates; Sandy
Sidorsky, Alameda; Adam Howard, Bank of Alameda; Neil Sekhri,
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Applicant's Attorney; Gary Fanger,
Alameda; Andy Tung, Gracepoint Fellowship Church; Edward Kang,
Gracepoint Fellowship Church; and Clement Chu, Cantamar Homeowners
Association.
Neutral : Michael John Torrey, Alameda.
* * *
(08-165 - ) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the
meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether fast foot restaurants can
be prohibited.
The Planning Services Manager responded the City does not have a
definition of fast food restaurants.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a definition could be
established in order to prohibit fast food restaurants.
The Planning Services Manager responded a definition could be
established.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned that fast food
restaurants create trash and drive-through traffic; a pre-
construction biology survey is one of the additional conditions of
approval provided tonight ; inquired whether the Applicant is
willing to do the necessary regulation activity if the survey finds
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
April 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-06,8,"Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee identified Charter
sections that Council wanted to review; other sections of the
Charter need to be reviewed for consistency.
Mayor Johnson stated that starting public discussion does not hurt;
she does not agree with all recommendations, such as Board and
Commission issues.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that there is a desire to expand the scope of
the initial workshop beyond the eight identified issues; the City
Attorney's office has other priorities requested input on the City
Attorney office's ability to support and provide framing of the
2009 issues.
The Senior Assistant City Attorney stated every effort would be
made; the timeline is tight for a final vote by July 15.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not believe some of the
issues are difficult.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that consideration needs to be given to
framing the practicalities of the Mayor's and Councilmembers'
compensation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the
November ballot include the proposed revision requiring the
appointment of department heads to be on the advice and consent of
Council; he will not support the compensation issue.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was trying to clean up language
and past confusion regarding Section 2-11; he would like to have
the same language extended to Commissions or to take the section
away.
Mayor Johnson stated that removing the section might be the
solution; State law governs conflict of interest.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter is a clean up issue.
Mayor Johnson concurred.
Councilmember deHaan stated Section 12-4 (d) reads the Public
Utilities Board (PUB) shall ""prepare and adopt an annual budget;
suggested that the Section be changed to state that the annual
budget would be recommended to Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the change would be consistent with
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
May 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-20,8,"comparison shows a snapshot of every fourth quarter since 1997;
Statewide comparisons seem to be leveling off, but Alameda County
is on an upward tick; the City seems to be having a downward trend;
it is not clear whether the chart indicates trending or just a
snapshot of the fourth quarter.
The Finance Director stated the comparison is a snapshot; the Sales
Tax Consultant produced the graph; advances are given during the
first two months of the quarter; a true up is given the last month
of the quarter; a final true up is given the first month of the
next quarter; she is not sure whether a comparison can be done
other than as a quarterly snapshot.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired about trending.
The Finance Director stated trending is stable and has been within
half a percent up and down.
Mayor Johnson stated that Harbor Bay Business Park should be shown
as a separate area; Harbor Bay Business Park businesses do not
provide revenue to the City; stated that Clif Bar is not a sales
tax generator.
The Finance Director stated that staff would work with the Sales
Tax Consultant; information will be provided in the next Quarterly
Sales Tax Report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that breaking down Marina Village
retail would be advantageous also; increased food product
transactions indicate that people are coming into Alameda.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*08-215) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal
Advertising for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2009. Accepted.
(*08-216) Recommendation to accept the work of Cummins West, Inc. ,
for the provision of two main engines for the Peralta. Accepted.
(*08-217) - Recommendatior to accept the work of E.A. Sparacino
General Contractor, Inc. for the roof structure for the Maintenance
Service Center transfer pad and dumpsters, No. P.W. 04-07-14.
Accepted.
(*08-218) - Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 20, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-03,8,"Avenue property and administrative citation process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-247 - ) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14216,
""Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for FY 2008-09 and
Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement
Area of the City of Alameda for FY 2008-09. "" Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of resolution) : Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) ; Kathy Moehring.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired which funds pay for the maintenance, to
which the Development Services Director responded Landscape and
Lighting District funds.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much is collected.
Ms. Moehring responded approximately $32,000; stated maintenance
costs are approximately $54,000.
Mayor Johnson stated Webster Street property owners are not paying
for the [entire] maintenance; stated the public invested several
million dollars and the investment should be maintained.
Ms. Moehring concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated there was not
enough time to educate property owners.
Mayor Johnson stated that an attempt was made three years ago to
increase the assessment.
Mr. Ratto stated an attempt was made to increase the Business
Improvement Assessment (BIA) boundaries the vote failed.
Ms. Moehring stated the number one priority is to work with
property owners to help them understand the importance of
increasing the Landscape and Lighting District fees.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 3, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-06-17,8,"apply for funds.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution and
approval of the staff recommendations except for the implementation
of fuel surcharges.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that a lot of staff time has been spent on
the ferry system which ultimately will no longer belong to the
City; inquired what is the threshold to stop spending staff time on
the matter.
The City Manager responded staff would provide an update on the
status of the Ferry Service transition; clarified that Council is
approving all items except the proposed fuel surcharge.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(08-272) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Relay for Life
will be held on June 21 and 22; Amateur Radio Week is June 21
through June 29; the City of Oakland will have disaster
preparedness presentations on June 25.
(08-273) Debra Owen, Frank Bette Center for the Arts, stated the
Center is willing to explore options to partner with the City to
produce Art in the Park.
(08-274) Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA).
stated the Webster Street Jam event would be held in September ;
WABA'S goal is to increase awareness of Alameda artists; WABA would
like to have the [Art in the Park] art community be part of the
Webster Street Jam event.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(08-275) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Civil
Service Board, Film Commission, Housing Commission, Library Board,
Planning Board, Public Art Commission, Public Utilities Board,
Social Service Human Relations Board and Transportation Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Kenneth I. Dorrance, Patricia Grey, and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 17, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-06-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-01,8,"increase the subsidy for the ferry.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff advocate on behalf of using gas
tax windfalls to offset increased public transportation costs and
investigate whether the League of California Cities is doing
anything regarding the matter.
The Deputy City Manager stated last year a resolution encouraged
not diverting transportation money said diversion took place
anyway; that she would advocate.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the breakeven point to
increase ridership to supplement the additional fuel cost.
The Ferry Services Manager responded the Alameda/Oakland Ferry
Services (AOFS) had a slight decline of 436 tickets in the first
few months of 2007-2008; stated the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry (AHBF)
is doing quite well; AHBF tickets increased by 2,657 tickets for
the first five months of this year; annual fare box revenue would
generate $663,000, which would be approximately $45,000 short of
what would be needed if fuel costs are $4.75 per gallon.
Councilmember deHaan stated a twenty-five cent increase is proposed
for AOFS and a fifty-cent increase for AHBF.
The Ferry Services Manager stated revenue would need to be obtained
right away in order to offset the $4.75 per gallon fuel cost; AHBF
is operated by Harbor Bay Maritime Harbor Bay Maritime is already
spending more than $4.75 per gallon for fuel staff has requested
Harbor Bay Maritime to reconsider vendors and also consider the
possibility of not fueling by truck, but by barge.
Councilmember deHaan stated AHBF has constraints and cannot grow
much more; the terminal parking lot is almost full.
The Ferry Services Manager stated the terminal parking lot has
approximately 20% capacity left.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he observes that approximately
nine spots are available.
The Ferry Services Manager stated restriping is being considered.
buncilmember deHaan stated that restriping would only add eight or
ten more spots.
Vice Mayor Tam stated 10,000 additional AHBF ticket sales would be
needed to cover the fuel increase; AOFS and AHBF cannot subsidize
each other inquired whether the proposed increase would cover
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-07-15,8,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether a comparison was made on taxing
mechanisms in other cities.
The Deputy City Manager responded Alameda is relatively low for
northern Alameda County stated Oakland and Berkeley have extra
taxes.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 52% support is a good
threshold.
Mr. Below responded 52% is a pretty soft number stated going
forward would be risky, but could be done.
Mayor Johnson stated the margin of error is 5%.
Mr. Below stated that he would like to see definite numbers higher.
The Deputy City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Opponents (Not in favor of resolution) : Rob Platt, Alameda
Association of Realtors; Troy Staten, Alameda Association of
Realtors; Steve Sorensen, Alameda (submitted document) .
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Association of Realtors
supported raising the real property transaction tax several years
ago.
Mr. Platt stated the market was different at that time.
Councilmember Gilmore stated other tax mechanisms have less support
than the proposed real property transaction tax; inquired whether
Mr. Platt has any ideas on how the burden could be shared equally.
Mr. Platt responded that people who are forced to sell would bear
the burden of the entire budget deficit.
Councilmember Gilmore stated citizens do not want public safety
services cut the City does not have the revenue to maintain the
same level of public safety services.
Mayor Johnson stated budget cuts were made by taking money out of
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-07-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-05,8,"Ms. Page responded priorities should be set after costs are
submitted.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the motion be restated.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to adopt the Strategic
Plan, authorize staff to go forward with the RFP and bring it back
to Council.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that her second stands.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1.]
(08-331) - Resolution No. 14257, ""Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible
State Budget Decisions That Would Divert Local Government,
Redevelopment, and Transportation Funds. Adopted.
The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not like the term ""borrow"".
inquired whether the resolution could be amended to ""divert"".
The Deputy City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Opponents Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; David Howard, Action Alameda.
Following Ms. Lipow's comments, Councilmember deHaan inquired
whether the City is not addressing Assembly Bill 1781, to which the
Deputy City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the language could also include
opposition to taking funds from school districts.
The Deputy City Manager responded the Council is on record asking
the State not to take school district resources.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution, with the
revised language to replace ""borrow"" with ""divert"".
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -4. [Absent : Councilmember Gilmore - 1.
]
(08-332) Resolution No 14258, ""Providing, as Official City
Reference Documents, the Alameda County Residential Green Building
Guidelines for New Home Construction, Home Remodeling, and
Multifamily Residential Development ; the U.S. Green Building
Council's LEED Rating Systems for New Commercial Construction and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 5, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-08-19,8,"Mayor Johnson encouraged golfers to participate in the effort to
save the Golf Course and not just complain about what other people
are proposing; inquired what would be the trigger point if play
declines with the proposed fee increases.
Ms. Sullwold responded rounds should be reviewed at the end of the
first month after the proposed fees go into affect.
The Interim Golf Manager stated the proposed fees would go into
affect September 1st
Mayor Johnson stated the review could be placed on the October City
Council agenda, or could be dropped from the agenda if there is no
decline in play.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should come back to
Council regardless.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to provide a monthly review starting one month after
implementation of the fee increases.
Ms. Sullwold stated updates could be provided at the second City
Council meeting every month.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the
matter come back so that Council could choose to act or not.
Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion to approve the rate
increase recommended by the Golf Commission and staff, and direct
staff to monitor the matter on a monthly basis starting in October.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether monitoring would be in the
form of written reports from the Interim Golf Manager.
Councilmember Matarrese responded he would like the matter to be
presented at Council meetings every month starting in October.
Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following
voice vote : Ayes : Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 2.
Noes (via non-response) : louncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, and Tam -
3.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he understands the desire to
increase fees; resident golfer fees were $80.00 in 2002; he would
have liked to have more data available on fee increases over the
past years.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-08-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-09-02,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING
TUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 2, 2008- -6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson; Board
Members Hamm, Holmes, Kurita, McCahan,
and McCormick - 10.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(08-362) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council and the PUB
received a briefing from Legal Counsel and outside Counsel
regarding anticipated litigation; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Public Utilities Board
September 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-09-02.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,2008-10-07,8,"higher if the shopping center was doing well and built out i the
impact would be less; the delta would be less if the shopping
center is doing well as opposed to doing poorly; more traffic would
be generated if the shopping center is doing well, and the change
in traffic is less; higher impacts would be realized by starting
artificially low because there would be a bigger delta.
Ms. Thomson stated the delta is the increase; a 112,000 square foot
increase would generate 250 trips; the existing shopping center is
not operating at 545,000 square feet, but at 475,000 square feet or
450,000 square feet.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the adequacy of the EIR is being evaluated
tonight; an EIR reviews a base level and worst-case action level
and identifies impacts.
The Supervising Planner stated the sales tax table looks at
aggregated sales tax data for different sectors from 2003 and 2005;
there can only be one highest year; sales tax would be down for all
other years.
Peter Galloway, Omni-Means, stated shopping center activity is not
as robust as the 545,000 square feet would suggest said
information was not available when counts were done; he feels that
Omni-Means' counts are fairly accurate; Omni-Means took the
existing base square footage to calculate trips and calculated
trips for the proposed square footage using shopping center rates;
driveway rates were not used because Omni-Means cannot account for
trips coming in and out of the Post Office or restaurants that are
not part of the shopping center; the Institute of Transportation
Engineers ( ITE) shopping center rates were used after reviewing the
matter with the Public Works Department.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the full build out rate
was a calculation projected using the number of trips for shopping
centers based on square foot of retail shopping centers, to which
Mr. Galloway responded in the affirmative
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the number is theoretical
and remains the same whether the baseline is based on a
conservative projection of not being a fully occupied or robust
shopping center and is based on the square footage of the shopping
center using the same criteria to peg the top number, to which Mr.
Galloway responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the two to one lane drop was
analyzed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
October 7, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-10-21,8,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is whether principle
payments should be made; decisions need to be made on the best
place for cash flow.
Mr. Kenney stated the City is trying to work another $2.5 million
into a budget that is already strained to ensure that obligations
are met the City may get to a point where the retiree budget will
engulf the entire budget for current services.
Mayor Johnson questioned how the City would provide needed levels
of public safety when payments are required for retiree health
benefits.
Mr. Kennedy stated that a lot of cities are looking at the issue;
the current economy is exposing a lot of weaknesses that were
hidden by a strong economy.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Committee's recommendatior is
Alternative B, which requires raising an additional $2.3 million on
top of $1.2 million; stated Alternative B would increase the
shortfall of approximately $4 million next year to $6.3 million;
questioned whether the Committee is suggesting that the City not
tap into the fund balance for said amount.
Mr. Kenney responded in the affirmative; stated the General Fund
balance could be spent down to zero if significant changes are not
made to free up revenue going forward; stated the City has a $75
million liability; staff presented a variety of payment options;
there is a lot to be said for pre-funding as much as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many retirees are assumed on Attachment
B and what are the premiums.
Mr. Kennedy responded the current population was considered and
assumptions were made regarding turnover and change in
demographics.
Councilmember Matarrese stated no one is supporting the pay-as-you-
go approach; the question is how much the City will pay over and
beyond the annual premium; the money needs to be squeezed out of an
already tight budget that he appreciates the work of the Fiscal
Sustainability Committee; he prefers a fixed figure even if
adjustment would be needed; the obligation is real and contracted;
that he likes the idea of taking the from an ARRA loan to help fund
the obligation.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated a
fixed number has to be set; funding was not provided for the 1079
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
October 21, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-10-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-11-06,8,"The Human Resources Director stated MCEA only has the Golden
Handshake, not the medical benefit; the cost to provide medical
benefits to MCEA would be approximately $14,000 if both eligible
MCEA employees take the Golden Handshake.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Kemper Sports would have their own
employees if they took over the whole operation; inquired why the
City would be paying addition costs if ACEA workers are employed
for part of the year.
The City Manager responded the original proposal included
replacement of all maintenance workers on day one; the unknown is
the difference between the two proposals' cost; the proposal to
keep City employees until they retire would be an additional cost
The Interim Golf Manager stated Kemper Sports' initial proposal was
for everything; Kemper Sports came back with a proposal to just
provide management; Kemper Sports would not be replacing any
maintenance workers.
Mayor Johnson stated that Kemper Sports' staffing level for the
entire operation would be sixteen employees and four seasonal
employees.
Mr. Luthman stated seasonal employees are included in the sixteen.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not have enough detailed
information to make a good decision; that he is not in a position
to make a decision tonight; management is not spelled out for the
draw down of personnel.
The City Manager stated the original ACEA proposal stated that ACEA
would work under the direction and control of the private operatori
the current proposal clarifies parameters and timing of work force
reductions.
The Human Resources Director stated any eligible employee could
retire under the window of the Golden Handshake, which would be up
to 180 days; eligible employees could retire and receive two years
service credit to the PERS calculation for retirement an added
incentive would be the medical insurance at the single party 2009
Kaiser rate; medical insurance would be provided for twelve months
onlyi any eligible employees who chooses to wait until later to
retire risks having the premium reduced by one month for each month
they wait; the proposal includes an early January notification for
one ACEA lay off related to the Mif Albright Course closure layoff
notifications would be sent if not enough members retire during the
Adjourned Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-11-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-11-18,8,"Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Cardinal Point area lost
approximately 20,000 square feet of office space.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated there
was a two-story office building and a number of rail cars strung
together as offices in addition to retail offices. everything was
demolished to construct Cardinal Point and the boat storage area;
the General Plan amendment allowed 5,000 square feet of office
space on the east side of Marina Square Drive.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is approximately
15,000 square feet less office space with the General Plan
amendment than before Cardinal Point was built, to which the
Supervising Planner responded approximately.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Carriage House applied for a
specific project or just a change in land use.
The Supervising Planner responded the Carriage House applied for a
Planned Development amendment; stated Cardinal Point had a Planned
Development; the Planned Development amendment approved by the
Planning Board allowed the Carriage House site to be all office
space.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a specific project was proposed.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
project went through the design review process but was never
constructed.
Mayor Johnson stated the process needs to require a specific time
for moving forward with a project; the building permits have
expired.
The Supervising Planner stated the Planned Development is still
approved.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to be careful in granting
approval if there is limited square footage for a particular use;
applicants are able to land bank and not move forward with the
project.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City has had issues with land
banked, blighted buildings the Silver building was vacant for
years on Park Street; the City did not have the tools to force the
owner to repair and rehabilitate the building ; the Carriage House
is very similar the City should consider specific timeline
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 18, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-11-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-12-02,8,"Mayor Johnson stated public access channels still needs to be made
available.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(08-516) - Public Hearing to consider Ordinance No. 2988, ""Extending
the Moratorium on the Establishment or Expansion of Medical
Marijuana Dispensaries Until June 30, 2010. Passed.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how the proposed extension would
affect the Planning and Building Department fund.
The Supervising Planner responded the matter would be put into the
work program.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether something else would get
bumped.
The Supervising Planner responded staff is considering its next
work program; stated that she does not anticipate anything being
bumped.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has a hard time believing
that the budget will not be impacted.
Councilmember Gilmore stated adding the matter to the existing work
program causes the extended timeline.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue needs to be watched.
Councilmember deHaan requested further information on the on-going
hearing.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that she declines to comment
other than to say that the hearing was held on November 18; stated
the Hearing Officer will issue a decision.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff could provide a
description of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson responded the hearing was about revocation of the
license.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that a letter was sent out in
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
December 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-12-16,8,"fiscally responsible.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fire Chief needs to propose ways to
maintain twenty-sever suppression positions without using overtime. ;
other alternatives have not been reviewed; staff needs to be very
creative and think outside the box; every possibility needs to be
reviewed before proposals are made; organizational flattening has
been suggested but has not come back for Council discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Matarrese is requesting
service level quantifications; response times need to be clarified;
comparing service levels with dollars needs to be discussed
drastic steps need to be taken; monumental events have taken place
since the budget was adopted.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be brought back for
discussion.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the timeframe needs to be discussed.
The City Manager stated staff is working on the budget daily and is
waiting to receive revenue figures this month.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he cannot wait until revenue figures
are received; Measure P anticipated bringing in a lot of revenue.
The Interim Finance Director stated the City would not reap Measure
P benefits for twenty-four months. the current and next fiscal year
budgets need to be bifurcated.
Mayor Johnson stated the Fire Chief needs to advise Council on
appropriate service levels.
Councilmember Tam stated Council never assumed Measure P revenue
transparency is needed and revenues need to be known; Alameda does
not want to end up like the City of Oakland, which over projected
revenues; staff has been working on every changing circumstance
reports would be provided on anticipated Measure P revenues, auto
dealership sales tax losses, Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB)
unfunded liability actuarial study, and State Board of Equalization
negotiations; the Fire and Police Chiefs provided fiscal
sustainability reports; Council may not agree with the findings ;
the City Manager is commissioning an independent study.
The City Manager stated said information would be provided in
February or March.
Councilmember Tam stated Dr. Otani is familiar with triaging at
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 16, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-12-16.pdf