{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:36 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n( 05-421 - ) Library Project update.\nThe Project Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she continually receives positive\ncomments from the public.\n(05-422) Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association,\nannounced that the Peanut Butter Jam Festival would be held on\nSeptember 10 and 11, 2005 between Webster Street and Pacific\nAvenue. presented wine glasses to the Council; thanked the City and\nAlameda Power & Telecom for sponsoring the event.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the\nMayor to send letters to federal legislators [paragraph no. 05-425]\nwas removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n(*05-423) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings\nheld on August 16, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-424) Ratified bills in the amount of $11,953,915.90.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 2, "text": "(05-425) Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send letters to\nfederal legislators supporting S. 1260 (Vitter) S. 113\n(Feinstein), H.R. 2353 (Rogers) , and H.R. 3431 (Dent ) which amend\nfederal legislation to further restrict the establishment of tribal\ngambling casinos.\nDoug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) thanked the\nCouncil for the efforts to stop the gambling casino proposal at\nMartin Luther King Park; encouraged continual vigilance; stated\nthat the Tribe's application has not been withdrawn; there has been\nno response to EBRPD's communications to the Bureau of Indian\nAffairs.\nMayor Johnson stated there has been a true partnership between all\nthe affected cities, EBRPD, and the County; the public should be\ninformed of federal representatives actions; read a portion of the\nproposed legislation: stated local control at the federal level\nmeans the Governor that she would prefer local control be more\nlocal; the Governor does not have much control over casinos there\nis a lot of important work being done that will help the community.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that there is a slew of legislation\npushing back on casinos' efforts to enter urban areas; H.R. 3431\nwould ensure local governments within 15 miles of a proposed site\nhave a say ; encouraged H. .R. 3431 be strengthened.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved to approval of the staff\nrecommendation\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-426) Recommendatior to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk,\nInc. for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 25, No.\nP.W. 05-04-06. Accepted.\n(*05-427) Recommendation to approve the Request for Proposals (RFP)\nfor Restaurant and Bar Services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\nAccepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-428 ) Resolution No. 13888, \"Commending Alameda Free Library\nDirector Susan H. Hardie for Her Contributions to the City of\nAlameda. Adopted.\nCounci lmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMs. Hardie thanked the Council for the resolution; stated that it\nhas been her pleasure and privilege to be involved with the new\nlibrary project.\n( 05-429 - ) Resolution No. 13889, \"Appointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft\nas a Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted\n(05-429A) Resolution No. 13890, \"Reappointing Robert F. Kelly as a\nMember of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted; and\n(05-429B) Resolution No. 13891, \"Reappointing Anthony M. Santare as\na Member of the Golf Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember deHaan - 1.\n[Note: Councilmember deHaan was away from the dais when the matter\nwas voted upon. ]\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of\nappointment to Ms. Ashcraft and Mr. Santare.\n(05-430) Public hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance\n\"Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building\nand Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section 13-4 - (Alameda\nElectrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I,\nSection 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004 California\nElectrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.\nIntroduced.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nThere being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of\nthe Hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the Ordinance.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 4, "text": "(05-431) Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's decision to impose penalties for unauthorized\ndemolition. The site is located at 616 Pacific Avenue, within the\nR-4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Erwin\nRoxas and\n(05-431A) Resolution No. 13892, \"Granting the Appeal and\nOverturning the Historical Advisory Board's Decision to Uphold the\nFive-Year Stay in Development for the Property Located at 616\nPacific Avenue. Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the site's historic designation is\nLevel H; inquired whether Levels A through G are before Level H.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that designation \"N\" is for\nbuildings that could be placed on the National Register, \"S\" is for\nbuildings that could be placed on the State Register, and \"H\" is\nthe lowest level for potentially historic buildings that require\nfurther investigation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nOpponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Kevin Frederick, Alameda.\nProponent (In favor of appeal) : Paul Rezucha, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated that she could not tell from the drawings that\n24 studs were retained; the neighbor mentioned that studs from the\nnorth and west walls were being retained; inquired whether parts of\nthe walls would be used in the interior of the house.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether any of the exteriors walls would\nremain, to which the Acting Planning and Building Director\nresponded that the sidewall and part of the front wall would\nremain.\nMayor Johnson stated that the west and front walls appear to be\ncompletely new.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 5, "text": "The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the walls on\nthe right-hand side of the house and most of the front wall would\nremain; a number of the back and left side walls would be inside.\nthe ordinance addresses demolition of more than 30% of the value of\na home enclosing an exterior wall is not considered demolition.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the intent of the ordinance was to\npreserve the historic structure; questioned how retaining some of\nthe studs preserves a historic structure.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the\nordinance was intended to preserve the historic structure; the\nfirst floor, sidewall, and front wall would remain; the roof would\nbe raised; determining that the demolition would be less than 30%\nwas reasonable.\nMayor Johnson stated that the front and west walls look like new\nwalls.\nThe Acting Planner/Building Official stated that the front wall\nwould be changed; the original house had 45 degree angles at the\ncorners ; the new house would be squared off; the side walls would\nremain; moving doors and windows is not considered demolition.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue is deconstruction versus demolition;\nthe owner believes that deconstruction is not demolition.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he truly\nbelieves that the owner understood that the Planning Department\ngave permission to dismantle or deconstruct, stack the pieces in\nthe backyard, and put the pieces back when the dry rot was\nrepaired; the ordinance needs to be reviewed; interpretation is\nsomewhat vague.\nMayor Johnson stated the ordinance is not doing what was intended,\nis not protecting the historic assets, and could result in more\ndamage than protection; inquired what are the options under the\nordinance; stated that she did not understand how the 3,400 square\nfoot structure got through the design review process; the houses in\nthe area are smaller, one-story craftsman style homes; a 3,400\nsquare foot home is gigantic for the neighborhood.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated the lot is one of\nthe biggest on the block; there are 21 residential structures,\nincluding 10 two-story homes and 11 one-story homes ranging from\n792 to 4,480 square feet; 17 of the structures are single-family\ndwellings, 3 are duplexes, and one is a 5-unit apartment building ;\nthree buildings are between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet each\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 6, "text": "directly in back of the lot on Lincoln Avenue 15 of the buildings\nare owner-occupied and 6 are rentals; the construction period\nranges from 1895 to 1999; the neighborhood has a fairly good mix\n[of houses]\nMayor Johnson stated that the design review process needs to be\nreviewed; there are commercial and two-story structures in the\narea; Lincoln Avenue structures should not be considered; inquired\nwhether moving a piece of the structure counts as demolition.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded not\nnecessarily; the project is viewed as a whole to determine if\ndemolition is more or less than 30%; a new, red stamp will be\nplaced on all plans to indicate the Historical Advisory Board's\n(HAB's ) approval is needed prior to demolishing more than 30% of a\npre-1942 - home.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed; people think\nthat deconstruction and reconstruction do not count as demolition.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the demolition issue is being reviewed\nindependently; someone could demolish less than 30% of a house and\nbuild a structure that does not look historic; on the other hand, a\n50% demolition and remodeling project could retain the historic\nlook; that she is not sure how the demolition can be separated from\nthe design review; the matter needs to be reviewed in terms of what\nis being protected.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated the exterior walls\nand roof percentages are reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that the design does not reflect the historic\ncharacter of the building.\nouncilmember Daysog inquired when demolition versus deconstruction\nissues would be addressed.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded the issues\nwould be addressed as quickly as possible; that he would like to\nreview other jurisdiction's process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the situation is unfortunate; the\nexisting ordinance needs to be clarified; the Appellant needs to\nmove forward with the project for reasons stated in the report ;\nstaff and the Appellant have different interpretations; suggested\nmoving forward with the project and, at the same time, move forward\nwith resolving the larger issues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the dry rot issue should be handled\nfrom a construction standpoint.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that rotted\nwood needs to be removed; new members could be attached if termite\ndamage has been repaired; termite repair can be more than 30% of a\nhouse.\nMayor Johnson stated the Appellant should have been referred to the\nHAB to get a demolition permit when the rot was discovered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the implication in\nupholding the five-year stay.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Appellant would need to\nprovide a landscaping plan and maintain the site for five years\nwith no building on it.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there are other dynamics occurring;\ninquired how many similar projects there are in the City.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are three\nprojects subject to the ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether one project was resolved, to\nwhich the Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the bubble has been lost in the\ninterpretation of the ordinance; he is concerned with retaining the\narchitectural design; the scale seems to be imposing on the\nneighborhood; inquired what the adjacent houses look like.\nMayor Johnson responded that the adjacent houses are both two-story\nstructures; that she does not recall the houses being close to\n3,400 square feet.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the adjacent\nhouses are approximately 1,500 square feet each.\nCouncilmembei deHaan stated that there are multiple dwellings that\nare expanding and becoming disproportional to the adjacent housing;\ninquired whether the HAB reviews the issue.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the HAB\nwould address the issue if a historical structure were involved.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what floor area ratio was being\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 8, "text": "employed.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he was not\nsure; stated that the floor area ratio falls within the lot\ncoverage requirements.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what was the maximum lot coverage.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded 40%; stated the\nlot is deceiving because of the area behind the neighbor's garage.\nMayor Johnson stated the portion that goes around the corner is not\nvisible; the house would be very large on the lot; inquired whether\na fine could be imposed instead of the five-year penalty.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded there would be\nincreased fees based on the valuation of the construction, for work\nwithout permit, and for investigation.\nMayor Johnson stated other people should not be allowed to\ndeconstruct and reconstruct until the ordinance is revised.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the staff is\nerring on the cautious side and referring people to the HAB.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the lot would be roughly 9,450 square\nfeet if the dog run was not included, which would be a .37% floor\narea ratio; housing should be viewed in terms of adjacent homes as\nwell as appropriate lot size; the home fits the lot size; there is\nnot a monstrous home affect.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the direction has been\ngiven to refer people to the HAB, to which the Acting Planning and\nBuilding Director responded that people are being referred to the\nHAB if demolition appears to be close to 30%.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that 30% could be a calculation\nbased on the structure of the building and not necessarily in\ncontext with the intent of the ordinance; there should be some\ndiscretion applied or guidance adopted allowing 25% or 30%\ndemolition to the front of a building and roofline would not meet\nthe real intent of the ordinance; inquired whether there is any\nrefinement on the plan check level that ties back to the issue of\ndesign review.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he makes the\n30% determination during design review; that he always gives more\nweight to the removal of exterior walls, particularly front walls,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 9, "text": "versus interior walls.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was any guidance\nbeing given now to prevent misinterpretation.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there are\nno new guidelines i staff would be looking more closely.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to know that the intent\nof the ordinance will be carried out; the drawings do not show any\nresemblance to the original house.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated 30% is hard to interpreti inquired\nwhether the percentage should be more.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded a method other\nthan percentage should be defined.\nMayor Johnson stated that there is no need to wait for an ordinance\nrevision to carry out the intent noted that a defacto demolition\nof a historic structure will not be allowed because of a badly\ndrafted ordinance.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the matter is\nbeing addressed; there should not be any similar issues in the\nfuture.\nThe City Manager stated that there have been many internal\ndiscussions regarding the lack of direction in some parts of the\nordinance; inconsistencies need to be address guidelines would be\nhandled internally.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether deconstruction and reconstruction\nwould be addressed, to which the Acting Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated that HAB input would be sought.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated some structures have the potential for\nhistoric designation but have not been certified; home owners\nshould not have to jump through hoops if the house is not truly\nhistoric; many houses are old, but not historic; she does not want\nto preserve old, non-historic houses inquired how the issue could\nbe balanced.\nMayor Johnson stated that owners could apply to have their houses\nremoved from the historic study list.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that the \"H\" designation is for old\nhouses that may have the potential to be historic, but need to be\nstudied more; houses may not be worth further study; a withdrawal\nprocess for non-historic houses may be necessary; the project's\ncharacter issues can be addressed in design review.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that 500 Central Avenue is a historical\nstructure.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that 500 Central Avenue has an \"S\"\ndesignation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that 30% demolition for 500 Central\nAvenue was unrealistic and should have been at 80%; stated that he\nhas concerns with how tonight's decision would impact the two other\noutstanding projects.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that tonight's\ndecision would only affect 500 Central Avenue; the other property\nwas not a listed building; there is another set of criteria for\nore-1942 houses; there was a whole different set of facts regarding\n500 Central Avenue; the owner was aware of what he was doing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the owner's awareness was a\ndistinction that could be used.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he thought\nso; the owner tore down a house on the same property last year\nwithout permits.\nMayor Johnson stated not setting precedents is important; inquired\nwhether the Appellant would have been successful in removing the\nproperty from the historical list at either the HAB or Council\nlevel.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that staff\nbelieves that the Appellant would have been granted a certificate\nof approval for demolition if sought prior to demolition; the house\nhas been significantly remodeled in the past 100 years; the house\nis very similar to a building that received a certificate of\napproval for demolition from the HAB; the Appellant was denied\nafter the fact.\nMayor Johnson stated that contributing factors are part of the\nordinance.\nThe City Manager stated that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in\nterms of options and penalties each project will be reviewed and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 11, "text": "determinations will be made based upon the circumstances of the\nbuilding.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether hold harmless clauses are standard\non planning and building resolutions.\nThe City Attorney responded the clause is not standard; the clause\nis requested to be included in certain cases.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that much of tonight's discussion is\nbased upon interpretation; stated that he is comfortable with the\nstaff's recommendation based upon what has been provided.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is very active. AAPS\nregularly advises him when there is any hint of activity.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether residents are advised about the\nprocess to have their houses de-listed; some ambiguity could be\ncleared.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded there is not a\ncurrent process.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated many issues suggest the need to\nstrengthening\nthe\nordinance\nwith\nregard\nto\ndemolition/deconstruction of historic properties the project\nshould move forward; the Appellant was working in good faith; there\nappears to be strong reasons for moving forward with the project\nwhile the ordinance is improved.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved to approval of the staff recommendation.\n[Adoption of the resolution Granting the Appeal and directing the\nCity Manager to review provisions of Section 13-21 of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code related to the demolition of historic structures and\ndevelop, with input from the community and HAB, recommended\namendments and penalty options. ]\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the design issue could be re- -\nexamined.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the design review has already\nbeen approved; the Appellant has been acting under the approval.\nMayor Johnson stated that 3,400 square feet is too much for the\nneighborhood.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Appellant could be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 12, "text": "requested to consider re-design; noted the Appellant has already\npulled permits and has vested the construction.\nMayor Johnson stated people would question why the project was\napproved in ten years.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he understands Mayor Johnson's\nconcern with the size, but that the footprint is appropriate for\nthe parcel.\nMayor Johnson stated lot coverage cannot be dealt with in a vacuum;\nthe rest of the neighborhood needs to be addressed. requested that\nstaff inquire whether the Appellant would be willing to look at the\ndesign review issue.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she sympathizes with Mayor Johnson's\nconcern about the size of the house; Alameda property owners have\ncertain rights if the structure fits within the box of the zoning\ncode; zoning for every other property in the City would be changed\nunless the zoning code is changed.\nMayor Johnson stated that the issue should be re-examined; lot\ncoverage is not an entitlement there is a design review standard\nfor neighborhood compatibility.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the house would be architecturally\nthe same if cut back by 800 to 1,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what the neighbors thought about the\nproject.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there was\na ten-day notice and no comments were received.\nMayor Johnson inquired who received the notice, to which the Acting\nPlanning and Building Director responded the property owners.\nMayor Johnson stated renters would not be informed about the\nproject.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the\nneighborhood is predominately owner occupied; County records\nindicate that 15 of the 21 buildings are owner occupied; 6 of the\nbuildings are rental.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to address the possibility of\nredesign with the Appellant.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 13, "text": "***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 9:10 p.m\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Applicant\nis unable to redesign the house; the house is designed for an\nelderly person in a wheelchair; the hallways are 5 feet wide;\nseveral bathrooms have a turning radius for a wheelchair.\nMayor Johnson stated redesigning the sidewall would make the house\nlook better noted the wall looks like a factory wall.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Johnson stated that an\narchitectural separation between the stories would not be that\ncostly.\nThe Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Appellant\ncould be requested to consider a different exterior sidewall\ndesign.\nThe Appellant agreed.\nMayor Johnson stated the building could look a lot better than the\ndrawings; less detailed work is easier for an owner-builder; making\nthe building look better is worth the effort; the larger issue of\ndesign review needs to be addressed; awareness of neighborhood\ncompatibility needs to be addressed in the design review process.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( 05-432 - ) Resolution No. 13893, \"Empowering the City Attorney to\nEmploy Special Legal Counsel. \" Adopted and\n(05-432A) Recommendation to approve Policy regarding Hiring\nProcedures for Special Legal Counsel.\nCouncilmember Daysog extended his appreciation to the City Attorney\nfor addressing some of the Council's issues; stated that the\nresolution is not just for the Council but for the City for many\nyears.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 14, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-433) Former Councilmemer Lil Arnerich, Alameda, discussed\ndisaster preparedness; stated that the Council should take charge\nin working with the Police, Fire, Public Works Departments, and\nschools to ensure that there is a detailed plan to provide\nemergency services and information to the community in case of a\ndisaster submitted a list of the Alameda County Fair's response\nteam.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the tabletop exercise was performed\nonce a year.\nMr. Arnerich responded in the affirmative; stated that the exercise\nis different from the City's exercise; noted the responsible\nparties should be identified before a disaster occurs; the table\ntop exercise has been conducted every year for six years and works\nvery well.\n(05-434) Bill Smith, Alameda discussed work/live studios, 500\nCentral Avenue, and fast boats.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-435) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,\nHistorical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and\nAppeals Board, Public Art Commission and Recreation and Parks\nCommission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg for\nreappointment to the Public Art Commission, and Terri Bertero Ogden\nfor appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission.\n(05-436) The Fire Chief provided information on Hurricane Katrina\nDisaster Relief and the City's Emergency Operation Plan and\nupcoming exercises.\nMayor Johnson stated that a lot of communication has been received\nregarding Hurricane Katrina and the City's disaster preparednessi\nnoted that the Fire Chief would provide information on how the\ncommunity could help the hurricane victims.\nThe Fire Chief stated that Hurricane Katrina is a challenging and\nunique type of disaster; continual flooding waters have delayed\ninfrastructure repair; financial contributions are needed; provided\ncontact information for the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army\nand the United Way, Bay Area; stated that the City's Emergency\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 15, "text": "Operation Plan is very comprehensive and outlines who is in charge\nand the responsibilities of each individual; the Mayor and the\nCouncil are the policy makers; the City Manager is in charge of the\nEmergency Operations Center ( EOC ; the City Manager would provide\ninformation on key decision points to the Council; EOC staff would\nwork 12-hour shifts throughout the duration of a disaster; the City\nhas a siren and warning system to effectively alert the community\nin an emergency; the system keys the community to tune into Channel\n15 or 1280 AM on the radio; there are over 100 people trained\nthrough the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) ; some teams\nhave been organized in specific areas; there will be a series of\ntable top exercises in October and a functional exercise in\nNovember the EOC would be activated during the table top\nexercises; the City Manager and staff would be present and would be\ngiven a complex scenario; logistical issues such as shelter, lost\npower and water, and accesses to the City are addressed; the\nemergency responders would work through a City-based scenario\nduring the functional exercise, while the Council would be making\npolicy decisions.\nMayor Johnson stated that it would be good for Councilmembers to\nattend the exercises; part of the exercise should address which\nissues are policy orientated; Councilmembers need to know where to\nreport and what their responsibilities are when a disaster occurs;\nthe phones and cable channels might not work during a disaster.\nThe Fire Chief stated that the Council would report to the\nChambers.\nMayor Johnson stated that she was not sure that the Council should\nreport to the Chambers if the electricity and cable are not\nworking; the issue needs to be addressed.\nThe Fire Chief stated that the first process would be for the\nCouncil to report to the Chambers; another building would be\nspecified if the equipment in the Chambers was not working.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to better understand the\nintent of having the Council report to the Chambers.\nThe Fire Chief stated that the Council would be involved in the\nplanning process.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to be better informed\nand confident that plans are in place; stated that the Council\nneeds to know the worst-case scenario; there is a lot of sandy soil\nand fill throughout the City; more than the bridges could be lost\nin the event of an earthquake; some issues that the Council needs\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 16, "text": "to\naddress are : how people would be evacuated, whether helicopters\nwould be available, and what would happen to the water supply;\npeople need to know how to turn off gas lines; stated that cable\ncommunicatior would most likely be out during a disaster.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested a current copy of the City's\nEmergency Operation Plan and that the matter be placed on an agenda\nfor discussion; stated that questions have been raised regarding\nthe placement of people and the use of public facilities including\nthe schools; that he would rather not wait until the exercise is\nperformed in October; the matter needs to be addressed as soon as\npossible; recommendations could be made and policy direction could\nbe given on what is in place now.\nThe City Manager stated that the Council would be provided with a\ncopy of the Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter could be\nplaced on an agenda for future discussion; issues that need\ndirection would be identified; sheltering questions could be\nanswered through the City's relationships with other agencies;\ntonight's intention was to ensure that the audience knows where\ncontributions can be made to the current disaster victims and that\nthe City has a plan in case a disaster occurs.\nouncilmember deHaan stated that everyone has a heavy heart right\nnow; the gas surge was a best-case scenario; resources were\navailable to handle the situation; the liquefaction was monumental\n(particularly at the Naval Air Station) during the earthquake\ntonight's discussion is timely; noted that he was sorry the\ndiscussion had to be within the current circumstances; stated that\nthe comments are worthwhile and appreciated; the Council has\nresponsibilities; stated that he takes the responsibility\nseriously; he is concerned with communication and support resources\nin the City; the Fire and Police Departments are on 24-hour shifts,\nbut other departments are not; stated that he looks forward to\nfurther discussion.\n( 05-437) - Councilmember Daysog requested: 1) an update on the\nstatus of the live/work issues, 2) a timetable outlining when the\nmatter would be addressed, and 3) an update on the court issues.\n(05-438) - Councilmember Daysog requested a review of current and\nfuture developments occurring in the City of Oakland that could\nhave impacts on the City of Alameda; stated that a recent cable\ntelevision show mentioned a project that would be occurring at Jack\nLondon Square.\n(05-439) - Councilmember Daysog stated that there seem to have been\na number of accidents at the intersection of Constitution Way and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 17, "text": "Pacific Avenue ; there was an accident yesterday around 4:00 p.m. ;\nthe Police and Fire Departments responded quicklyi there was a\ndeath at the location last year and another death one block upi\nrequested the area be reviewed such as the possibility of bushes\nbeing too high.\n(05-440) Councilmember Daysog stated that he was glad that\ndisaster readiness was on the minds of everyone; the next disaster\nor terrorism strike is not a matter of if, but when; planning ahead\nbenefits the community.\n(05-441) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received a\ncommunication from the town of Asuchio, El Salvador in response to\na request from the Social Service Human Relations Board's (SSHRB)\nSister City Committee; requested the response be conveyed to the\nSSHRB for consideration.\n(05-442 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a proposed\ndevelopment between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue below International\nBoulevard in Oakland for 800 to 1200 units of housing the two\nstreets feed into the Fruitvale and Park Street Bridges; the City\nshould keep an eye on development that occurs on both sides of the\nEstuary.\n(05-443) Councilmember deHaan stated periodic updates on the\nbudget are supposed to be provided to Council. inquired how often\nthe updates were to occur.\nMayor Johnson responded quarterly.\nThe City Manager stated that an update is scheduled for next month.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the ten-year forecast would be\npresented, to which the City Manager responded November, along with\nthe infrastructure budget.\nADJOURNMENT\n(05-444) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 10:00 p.m. in memory of the Hurricane\nKatrina victims.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-09-06", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 6, 2005- -6:10 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 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(05-417 - ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiator\n:\nBeverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney.\n(05-418) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nAttorney.\n(05-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9 Number of cases: One.\n(05-420) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900\nMain Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda\nGateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess to hold the City Council Meeting at\n7:25 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 10:05 p.m.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor\nNegotiators, the Council discussed labor negotiations; regarding\nPublic Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council did not discuss\nthe matter; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council\ndirected that the matter be further researched and brought back on\nSeptember 20, 2005; and regarding Conference with Real Property\nNegotiators, the Council directed that a response letter be sent.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 11:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 6, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf"}