{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n( 05-003 - ) Presentation on the basic requirements for an Indian\nTribe to operate a Casino in California.\nThe Assistant City Attorney provided a brief report on the basic\nrequirements to conduct tribal gaming.\nMayor Johnson stated that the purpose of the presentation was to\ninform the public on the required process for the Koi Tribe to\nobtain approval for a casino; stated that presentation tapes would\nbe available for public review and that the public should direct\nquestions to the City Attorney's office.\nMichael Scholtes, Bay Isle Pointe Home Owners Association, stated\nthat he opposes the proposed casino.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to place a resolution opposing the\nproposed casino on the next City Council agenda.\nRosemary Cambra, Mowekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay\nArea, submitted a handout and cautioned the Council on taking a\nstance against the proposed casino.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that Council would need to exert\npressure and fight on behalf of the City.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve\nAgreement between the Alameda Unified School District and the City\nof Alameda [paragraph no. 05-010], the Resolution Authorizing Open\nMarket Purchase [paragraph no. 05-012], and the Ordinance Amending\nthe Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 05-016] were removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-004) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on December 21, 2004. Approved.\n(*05-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,037,089.03\n(*05-006) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$127,102.65 to Stewart & Stevenson for Ferry Vessel Reduction\nGears, No. P.W. 10-04-15. Accepted.\n(*05-007) Recommendation to terminate the Contract with J.W. Riley\n& Son, Inc. for Alameda Point Multi Use Field, No. P.W. 12-02-18\nand authorize project completion. Accepted.\n(*05-008 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $45,000\nto Maze and Associates for Financial Modeling Services. Accepted.\n( *05-009) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Affordable\nHousing Ordinance. Accepted.\n(05-010) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the Alameda\nUnified School District and the City of Alameda for Use and\nDevelopment of Real Property at the K-8 School and Park site in the\nBayport Residential Development Project.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Agreement facilitates the goal for\nhaving the school and the park built near the Bayport residential\narea.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is funding for the\nPreschool and Tiny Tots at the Community Building, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*05-011) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Residential Interim\n115Kv overhead power line improvements and authorize recording a\nNotice of Completion. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "(05-012) - Resolution No. 13807, , \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Allied Sweepers, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda\nCity Charter, of Green Machine Sidewalk Cleaning Equipment. \"\nAdopted.\nSherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) thanked the\nCouncil for their efforts with the Webster Street project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was happy to see the project\nprogressing; she would like to see the trees replaced as soon as\npossible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased with the progress;\nrequested periodic progress reports on the Streetscape Project.\nMayor Johnson stated schedule updates should continue to be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n( *05-013 - ) Resolution No. 13808, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 8401\n(2340 and 2350 North Loop Road). \" Adopted.\n(*05-014) Resolution No. 13809, \"Reappointing T. David Edwards as\nTrustee of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.\n\"\nAdopted.\n(05-015) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -\nPILOT) ; Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in\nEnterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III\n(Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10\n(Exemptions) of Section 18-4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I\n(Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) . Introduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that increasing the Return on\nInvestment (ROI) to 3% could cause some impacts; encouraged the\nCouncil not to vote tonight and place the matter as an action item\nfor the next City Council meeting; $782,000 would be received from\nAlameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) by staying at the original proposal\nof 1% ROI; if the $782,000 is relayed back to the rate payer, the\nmonthly bill could be increased from $1.53 to $2.03.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with\ndirection that the matter be brought back to Council if there would\nbe any cause for rate increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-016 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community\nBenefit Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda\nImprovement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation)\n.\nIntroduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-017) Recommendation to reappoint Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet\nLaureat.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director outlined the nomination process.\nLisa Piatetsky, Executive Director Alameda City Art Council, stated\nthat she looks forward to having Ms. Rudge continue as Alameda's\nPoet Laureat.\nMary Rudge, Alameda, submitted a handout i outlined poet activities;\nthanked the Council for acknowledging and encouraging poetry.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "Nina Serrano, Alameda County Arts Commission, commended the Council\nfor having a Poet Laureat.\nMosetta Rose London, Alameda, thanked the Council for the\ndedication of the O'Club to Al DeWitt and for placing her poem on a\nplaque at the O 'Club; read a poem that she wrote.\nNanette Bradley Deetz, Alameda Island Poets, read a poem that she\nwrote about Alameda.\nKen Peterson, Vice President, Alameda Island Poets, stated the\nprogram has been a tremendous success for poetry and for the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-018 ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances V04-\n0005, V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 to permit the construction of a\nrear deck and garage addition that was completed without City\npermits. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade\nto the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left\nside) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an\nexpansion of the existing single-family dwelling up to the north\n(right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is\nrequesting four (4) Variances to permit the construction of the\nwork completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda\nMunicipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30-5.7(c) (2) (6) to construct a rear\ndeck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to\nthe south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a\nminimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve\nto thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-\n5. 7 (e) (1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the\nsouth side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three\nfoot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings 3)\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d) (7) to construct an attached\ngarage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear\nproperty line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback\nis required for rear yards 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-\n4. 4 (d) (6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the\nmain dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback\nwhere a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The\nsite is located at 913 Oak Street within an R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential Zoning District. Applicant/Appellant: Fred and Ursula\nHoggenboom and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "(05-018A) Resolution No. 13810, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nDenial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances, V04-005,\nV04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 for the Structural Expansion of a\nSingle-Family Residence and Construction of Rear Deck at 913 Oak\nStreet. \" Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a presentation on the background\nof the project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was a two-story\nstructure connected to the house, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was intended to be\nmore than a one-car garage, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded that the plans indicate a one-car garage with storage on\nthe left side.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was a proposal for the\nupstairs portion of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded the photographs show an attic with a couple of chairs and\ntable.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the garage doors are smaller than the\nwidth of the driveway there is a vent pipe that comes down along\nthe side of the house and protrudes into the driveway which would\nmake it very difficult for a car to enter the garage.\nThe Supervising Planner stated many driveways are challenging in\nterms of access.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the intent of\nusing the garage for the proposed use.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Parking Ordinance requires\nthat garages be kept free of structures to accommodate a vehicle.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the garage could abut the property\nline if detached from the house; once the garage is attached to the\nhouse, there are side and backyard setback issues.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the Code allows for garages to abut\nboth the side and rear property lines under certain circumstances\nthe front of the garage needs to be 75 feet from the front property\nline and there needs to be a 5-foot separation between the main\nhouse and the garage a detached garage could comply with the 75-\nfoot regulation; she is not sure about compliance with the 5-foot\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 7, "text": "separation because there is a small addition at the rear of the\nhouse which might result in less than a 5-foot separation; a\nsmaller detached garage might require a modest variance.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of the garage,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded approximately 300 square\nfeet.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of a typical\ngarage, to which the Supervising Planner responded a one-car garage\nwould be approximately 200 square feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the garage was larger than a typical\ngarage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the\nresidents wanted storage.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the original garage was demolished, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded possibly a few years ago.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a deck variance\ninvolved.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the deck required a variance\nbecause it is 28 inches from the grade decks 12 inches from the\ngrade or less are allowed to encroach into yards decks between 12\nand 30 inches require a -foot separation from the side and rear\nproperty line; there is an opportunity to modify the deck by either\nreducing the height, which would result in a deck that is not level\nwith the house, or by reducing the size of the deck to provide the\nrequired set back.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was a height limit on backyard\nfences, to which the Supervising Planner responded the limit is 6\nfeet for a solid fence and 8 feet for a fence with 2 feet of\nlattice on top.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was an 11-foot fence in the\nyard, to which the Supervising Planner responded that staff is not\nclear who owns the fences that surround the property.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the fence issue would be pursued\nregardless of tonight's decision, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Fred Hogenboom, Alameda, and\nUrsula Hogenboom, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 8, "text": "Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Raymond A. Pacovsky, Sr., Alameda;\nRaymond S. Pacovsky, Jr., Alameda, and Barbara Kerr, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated the initiation of construction without permits\nmakes the permitting process difficult; inquired whether the\nAppellant informed the Planning Board that the structure was over\nhis property line.\nThe Appellant responded in the negative; stated that the structure\nis well within the property line; the structure was moved 2 inches\ninward from the original garage.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how tall the spa was from the floor of\nthe deck to the top of the spa, to which the Appellant responded\nthree and a half feet at the most.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning staff recommended\ndropping the deck approximately 12 inches; inquired whether the 12\ninches would equate to two steps.\nThe Appellant stated that he would need to put in three steps to\nlower the deck 12 inches.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether accommodating his wife was part\nof the reason for having the deck the same level as the house.\nThe Appellant responded that his wife has had two back surgeries\nand three hip replacements; stairs are difficult for her.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there is a two-foot hop to get into the\nspa which appears to be more difficult to navigate than the stairs\nout of the house.\nMayor Johnson stated that one of the reasons for deck height limits\nis because high decks and spas are an intrusion into neighbors'\nbackyards inquired how the footprint of the original garage was\nestablished.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the Appellant submitted\nplans in 1991 for foundation work at the front of the house which\nindicate that there is a separation between the back of the house;\nthe then existing garage did not seem to be as close as the current\nplans show.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant put siding on the\nneighbors' structures, to which the Appellant responded that he put\nsheet metal up to prevent rotting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant asked the neighbors\nbefore putting up the sheet metal, to which the Appellant responded\nin the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the variances are\ndenied, to which the Supervising Planner responded that two things\ncould happen; the Appellant could work with staff for a solution\nthat would allow a garage and deck that is either fully in\ncompliance or would require a more modest variance or the Appellant\ncould file a lawsuit against the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant has paid fines, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded investigative fees and fees\nfor working without the proper planning permits have been charged.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution upholding the\nPlanning Board's decision and denying the Appeal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated there was only one\ndecision that the Planning Board could have made given the\ncircumstances; encouraged the owner to work with the Planning\nDepartment to salvage the intent of the project within the\nrequirements of the Code.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she assumes that the Appellants had\nthe best of intentions; the Code clearly specifies detached garage\nand addition requirements; the project is attempting to be both an\naddition to the house and a garage stated future owners could\nconvert the garage into a living space.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(05-019) - Discussion regarding assistance for tenants at Harbor\nIsland Apartments.\nMayor Johnson stated that rent control issues are not on the agenda\ntonight but that the public is free to speak under Oral\nCommunications\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation\nregarding the assistance provided to the Harbor Island Apartment\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 10, "text": "tenants.\nSpeakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset\nManagement Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association;\nLorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc\nEcology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing\nAssociation; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association\n(submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant\nAssociation; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law\nCaucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill\nSmith, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units\ncurrently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17\nunits that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units\noccupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be\navailable to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment\ntenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he\nwas not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section\n8\ntenants that remained in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the\nimmediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still\noccupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance\ncan be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance\nopportunities for the remaining tenants through Community\nDevelopment programs or Sentinel Fair Housing.\nThe Community Development Manager responded that the Community\nDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair\nHousing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved\nwith a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to\nproduce new affordable housing units through the Substantial\nRehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to\napplicants who previously resided at the Harbor Island Apartments\nsecurity deposit assistance programs have been funded in the past\nwhich allowed Housing Authority tenants to borrow money from the\nrevolving loan fund and repay over time; the fund was depleted as a\nresult of earlier Section 8 problems; another funding cycle would\nbecome available in July.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a way to work\nwith the Apartment Owners' Association to help the remaining\ntenants.\nThe Community Development Manager responded there could be some\ncoordination for specific interventions that may help the tenants\nthe cash to provide deposits is a longer-term consideration and\nmight be more difficult without reprogramming of funds.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to review loan possibilities.\nThe City Manager stated that he would work with staff to find\nsolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated aggressive action is needed to help\nthe remaining tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that most families would like to remain\nat the Harbor Island Apartments but the courts have ruled otherwise\nand they must move; the City needs to see what can be done to\nfacilitate the situation in a manner that dignifies the tenants.\nthe Council needs to pursue the best policy that prevents the\nHarbor Island Apartment situation from happening again.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-020 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Webster\nStreet construction has posed a danger to bus passengers at the bus\nstops.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that the construction work has\nbeen delayed because of the rain; stated he would discuss the\nsituation with the Public Works Director.\n(05-021) Reginald James, Alameda, encouraged the reappointment of\nMary Rudge as Alameda's Poet Laureat; stated that he was concerned\nabout a sign stating that there may be a possible reproductive\nharmful environment at the Harbor Island Apartments ; stated that\nthere should be another meeting of the Harbor Island Task Force.\n(05-022) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed earthquakes.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-023) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed Interim City Manager,\nBill Norton.\nMayor Johnson welcomed the Interim City Manager to his first\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 12, "text": "Council Meeting.\nADJOURNMEN'T\n(05-024) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular City Council meeting at 11:15 in a moment of silence\nand sympathy for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005- - -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-001) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.\n(05-002) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nAttorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed Public\nEmployment and recruitment of the new City Manager, and Public\nEmployee Performance Evaluation of the City Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}