{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-463) - Proclamation declaring the week of September 17-23, 2006\nas National Pollution Prevention Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ed Clark with\nWebster Street Pharmacy, and Phillip Jaber with Versailles\nPharmacy.\nMr. Jaber stated the Bay-safe Mercury Thermometer Exchange Program\nhas been well received.\nMayor Johnson stated that people should know that mercury\nthermometers can be exchanged for a new mercury-free digital\nthermometer.\nMr. Clark urged the public to bring expired prescription\nmedications to Webster Street Pharmacy or Versailles Pharmacy for\ndisposal.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated mercury thermometers have been\ncollected for more than fifteen years; he is surprised mercury\nthermometers still exist.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving Amendment No.\n2\n[paragraph no. 06-468] and Resolution Establishing Guidelines\n[paragraph no. 06-469 were removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 2, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\nFollowing the discussion of the items pulled from the Consent\nCalendar, speaker David Kirwin requested to speak on the\nRecommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9-01-1 [paragraph no.\n*06-466] and the recommendation to accept and authorize to record a\nNotice of Completion [paragraph no. *06-467]\n(*06-464) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on September 5, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-465) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,732,440.43.\n(*06-466) Recommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9-01-1 - and\nauthorize request for bids for a Vehicle Tow Contract for the\nPolice Department. Accepted.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Buy Alameda campaign could be\nimproved through the bidding process.\n(*06-467) Recommendation to accept and authorize to record a Notice\nof Completion for Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line Demolition\nand Grading Improvements. Accepted.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated Public Works staff should be\nresponsible for final inspection before a Notice of Completion is\nsigned.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to explain whether Public Works signs\noff on the work.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nDevelopment Services works with the Public Works Department i Public\nWorks approves the projects.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the staff report indicates that the\noriginal engineer's estimate was $1.68 million; the total project\ncost was $1.40 million; $270,000 was saved.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendations to\nadopt Specification No. MSP9-01- [paragraph no. *06-466] and to\naccept and authorize to record a Notice of Completion [paragraph\nno. * F66-467].\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 3, "text": "voice vote - 5.\n(06-468) Resolution No. 14012, \"Approving Amendment No. 2 to the\n1986 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the issue has been controversial in the\nCity of Hayward; the City is being asked to join other Alameda\nCounty cities in voting for a change to the Measure B funding\nprogram; some people do not want to widen Mission Boulevard; stated\nhe would abstain on the matter.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether any other projects were remaining,\nto which the Public Works Director responded two projects remain.\nJames O'Brien, Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA)\nProject Control Team, stated the Hayward Bypass project was more\ncontroversial ten capital projects were listed in the Expenditure\nPlan; Amendment 1 addressed the first segment of the Route 238 and\nRoute 84 project and was replaced with a set of improvements to\naddress the congestion problems within the corridor; Amendment 2\naddresses the connection between Mission Boulevard and Interstate\n880; Union City and Fremont originally opposed the connection; the\nExpenditure Plan Amendment is needed because of the significant\nvariance from the plan description.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Board of Supervisors voted on\nthe amendment.\nMr. O'Brien responded the ACTA Board voted four to one; stated\nSupervisor Haggerty voted no.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Mayor of Hayward voted.\nMr. O'Brien responded the Mayor of Hayward voted in favor of the\namendment stated the matter needs to go to cities representing the\nmajority of the population in incorporated Alameda County; the\nmatter has been approved by ten of the fourteen cities; Alameda's\nvote would push the vote over the 50% line.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Fremont and Union City approved the\namendment, to which Mr. O'Brien responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nlouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-469) Resolution No. 14013, \"Establishing Guidelines for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 4, "text": "Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business\nTravel. \" Adopted.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated the $64 per diem rate only should\napply when in San Francisco.\nThe Finance Director stated the rate has not been updated since\n1996; San Francisco was used because the area is the closest\ngeographical area reported in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)\n1542 Publication; the $64 per day rate is the maximum amount\nfurther stated the proposed resolution would change the processes\nto automatically refer to the IRS publication for per diem\nreimbursement, the same as mileage reimbursement.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether reimbursement would be less\nthan $64 per day if expenses were less, to which the Finance\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that $46 in 1996 dollars equals $64 in\n2006 dollars when you use 4% annual rate of inflation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he did not see where the resolution\nlanguage included \"up to.'\nThe City Manager read the language in the proclamation addressing\nthe issue.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding reimbursement, the\nFinance Director responded receipts would need to be submitted.\nThe Finance Director responded in the negative; stated receipts\nwould need to be submitted.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-470) Resolution No. 14014, \"Reappointing Jessica Lindsey to the\nEconomic Development Commission. Adopted;\n(06-470A) Resolution No. 14015, \"Appointing Alan J. Ryan to the\nEconomic Development Commission. \" Adopted;\n(06-470B) Resolution No. 14016, \"Reappointing Betsy E. Gammell to\nthe Golf Commission. Adopted; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 5, "text": "(06-470C) Resolution No. 14017, \"Reappointing Jo Kahuanui to the\nRecreation and Park Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the oath and presented certificates of\nappointment.\n(06-471) Resolution No. 14018, \"Endorsing and Supporting the U.S.\nConference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement.\" Adopted.\nMayor Johnson stated the United States Conference of Mayors was\nrequesting a commitment for support at the local level.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the proposed resolution follows and\nsupports the resolution to join the International Council for Local\nEnvironment Initiatives which was adopted in July 2006.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter was placed on the agenda to ensure\nthat there was follow through with the commitment.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-472 - ) Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001, Zoning Ordinance\nText Amendment City-wide; and\n(06-472A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 30-4.9A.g.8 (Off-Street Parking and\nLoading Space) of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX\n(Development Regulations) to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions.\nIntroduced.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated downtown parking needs to be provided; she\nunderstands the City wants to de-emphasize the automobile in the\nGeneral Plan; however, people still need places to park; Webster\nStreet parking needs to be addressed immediately; she agrees with\nchanging the requirements; a structured parking lot should be\nconsidered.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the use runs with the owner or\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 6, "text": "building, to which the Supervising Planner responded the use runs\nwith the land.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a new building owner would get\nthe previous owner's reduced parking if the use would be different,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired what would happen if a ground floor\noffice was replaced by a retail store with more foot traffic.\nThe Supervising Planner responded ground floor office is not\nallowed in the Community Commercial (CC) District.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired about parking in lieu fees.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that parking in lieu fees are\ntriggered when a building or use cannot meet the parking standards ;\na fee is paid to assist the City with payment for off-street\nparking or a parking structure; parking waivers can be requested;\nparking in lieu requests are considered by the Planning Board.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the parking in lieu fees has a\nrange or a set amount per parking space.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the parking in lieu fees are\nbased on the assessed value times 250 square feet.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired what a parking study would cost, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded she did not think a parking\nstudy would cost as much as the cost of parking.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated parking in lieu fees are approximately\n$6,000 and are predicated on the property use; a lot of retail\ntenants do not stay very long.\nThe City Attorney stated the ordinance specifies that control would\nbe for the use as well as the structure.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a use permit continues unless the\nuse is discontinued for a year; further inquired whether the permit\ncould run with the use of the land.\nThe City Attorney responded the permit does not run with the land;\na new parking exception would be needed if there are structure and\nuse alterations.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance language was\npatterned after other cities.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 7, "text": "The Supervising Planner responded San Leandro's ordinance language\nwas used; additional research was done on how Albany, South San\nFrancisco, and San Carlos administer exception ordinances.\nouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said cities were satisfied\nwith the outcome.\nThe Supervising Planner responded no problems have occurred with\nSan Leandro's implementation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nKathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , stated\none of WABA's goals is to encourage new and existing businesses to\nflourish; WABA is in support of the proposed ordinance.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the present ordinance.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the present ordinance does not\nhave a parking exception provision.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be a change for\nrestaurants.\nThe Supervising Planner responded possibly; stated a change in\nhours of operation would not qualify for an exception because there\nwould not be a long-term change to the structure.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was tiering and whether\nonly offices would be affected.\nThe Supervising Planner responded some restaurants could request an\nexception if a large cooking area took up a lot of space.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's statement regarding a study,\nthe Supervising Planner stated a study needs to be approved by the\nPublic Works Director.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated other cities must have set up some type\nof standards inquired whether playbooks were used.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated review is\nmade on a case-by-case basis.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed ordinance provides a\nprocess so that a transit-firs policy can be brought to life; the\nWebster Street bus stop bulb outs protrude out into the lane\nclosest to the sidewalk; the idea is to begin to build changes that\nencourage mass transit and discourage automobile use; he likes the\nphilosophy behind the proposed ordinance; the City is moving in the\nright direction.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated off-\nstreet parking opportunities still need to be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog stated\nthe ordinance is proposed for introduction tonight.\nMayor Johnson requested that staff provide Council with an update\nin six months; stated the ordinance can be refined as needed.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the matter should be\nbrought back to see how things are working to determine whether\nmodifications are needed; the proposed ordinance provides an\nopportunity for interested retailers to come to the downtown areas.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(06-473) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments\nand Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13- - 2\n(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing), to\nIncorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire\nExtinguishing Systems. Not introduced.\nThe Fire Marshal provided a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested an explanation of the current calculation.\nThe Fire Marshal responded the building's assessed value is\nreviewed; stated currently a sprinkler system retrofit is triggered\nif the permitted work exceeds 50% of the assessed value.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the new calculation would work.\nThe Fire Marshal responded the new calculation would be based upon\nthe International Code Council Building Evaluation Table; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 9, "text": "the Table is broken down by occupancy group and by construction\ntype and provides a cost per square foot to determine what the\nconstruction costs would be for the building; the factor is\nmultiplied by the building square footage which gives the current\nbuilding value; the retrofit trigger point would be 25% of the\ncurrent building value.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether current value would be market value,\nto which the Fire Marshal responded the value of the building would\nbe based on replacement construction costs.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the calculation was typical for the\ntype of ordinance.\nThe Fire Marshal responded not all jurisdictions use the method.\nMayor Johnson stated construction costs are not reflective of\ncurrent value; inquired whether calculations would be based on the\nentire square footage of an apartment building if work was done on\na portion of the building, to which the Fire Marshal responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nProponent (In favor of ordinance) : Kathy Moehring, WABA.\nOpponents (Not in favor of ordinance) : Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Steve\nEdringon, Rental Housing Owners of Northern Alameda County; David\nKirwin, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nFollowing Mr. Edrington's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether\nthe intent is to bring more properties into the requirement by\nchanging the calculation from assessed value to square footage.\nThe Fire Marshal responded the intent is to create an even playing\nfield for the community by having a standard threshold for\nretrofitting.\nMayor Johnson stated a kitchen remodel could qualify.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the assessed value could be in the\nmillions for recently bought properties; inquired how long the\ncurrent ordinance has been in place, to which the Fire Marshal\nresponded seven or eight years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired how the value of the work is calculated, to\nwhich the Fire Marshal responded the value is calculated on the\nsame data evaluation table used by the Building Department.\nFollowing Mr. Kirwin's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether\nfeedback has been received on new construction; stated the concerns\nseem to be with remodels.\nThe Fire Marshal responded that he met with Alameda Point Community\nPartners, Catellus, Doric Development, Warmington, Peter Wong,\nResources for Community Development, Park Street Business\nAssociation, WABA, Alameda Association of Realtors, Chamber of\nCommerce, and Harbor Bay Homeownership Association.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether anyone had concerns, to which the\nFire Marshal responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether any of the speakers have concerns\nwith new construction.\nMr. Kirwin stated costs would be higher for new occupants.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the 25% threshold was\nselected.\nThe Fire Marshall responded 25% to 50% is the range other cities\nuse.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he does not understand the rational\nfor using the lowest range.\nThe Fire Marshal stated he felt 25% was a reasonable percentage\nbased upon building values and remodeling.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether all cities use the same value\ncalculation, to which the Fire Marshal responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what other methods are used, to which the\nFire Marshal responded assessed valuation and current building\nvalue.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether some cities use fair market value,\nto which the Fire Marshal responded that he would provide the\ninformation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the 25% threshold precludes people\nfrom investing in earthquake retrofitting and multiple upgrades\nthat may spread across a number of units; he would like to review\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 11, "text": "the 25% threshold and take a deeper look at the data for replacing\nthe whole building as the valuation to see where the range of other\ncomparables sit and what people are doing within the range; using\nthe assessed value is not fair.\nMayor Johnson stated an owner could spend less than 25% and still\nfall within the requirement because of the assessed value or square\nfootage of the entire structure.\nThe Fire Marshal stated the value of the work being done is\ncalculated using the same table to determine the building value.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she is in favor of ordinances that save\nlives; however, the proposed ordinance would pass on a serious cost\nto property owners; most of the Fire Department's calls are medical\nand not fire related.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated two buildings in town were damaged\nby fire; inquired whether the damage would have occurred if\nsprinkler systems were installed; stated that he is looking for a\ncost benefit; questioned whether fire sprinklers provide an\ninsurance break.\nThe Fire Marshal responded damage would not have occurred.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated fire carries up Victorian walls without\na problem; older homes are prone to extensive fires; sprinklers\nwould not have suppressed the referenced fires.\nThe Fire Marshall stated fire sprinklers are designed to help\noccupants get out of the building; fires are extinguished with one\nsprinkler head activation 95% of the time; smoke alarms are\nimportant, but sprinklers allow time for the occupants to exit the\nbuilding.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many structure fires occur in\nAlameda.\nThe Fire Marshall responded fifty-five structure fires, two\nfatalities, eight injuries and over $11 million in damage occurred\nin 2003; twenty-two of the fifty-five were in single and two family\ndwellings; twenty-three structure fires were in multi-family\ndwellings and ten were in commercial buildings; forty-two fires,\none fatality, two injuries and $1.5 million in damage occurred in\n2004; eighteen of the structure fires were in single or two family\ndwellings, nineteen were in multi-family dwellings, and five were\nin commercial buildings; nationally 3,900 people die in structure\nfires; 75% of structure fires are in one and two family dwellings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the extra cost for new\nconstruction.\nThe Fire Marshal responded the proposed ordinance has language that\nallows fire sprinkler systems to be combined with the domestic\nwater service, which eliminates the dedicated fire main system; the\nEast Bay Municipal Utility District allows the use of dual service\nmeters which supplies the fire sprinkler system and the domestic\nwater system for the house and reduces the cost.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated a range of questions have been\npresented which could be addressed at a workshop with affected\nstakeholders; workshops help in the rule making process; inquired\nhow information was obtained from the stakeholders.\nThe Fire Marshal responded groups meetings were held.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated\nthe current code is unfair because the threshold is based on\nassessed value; another valuation is needed; the threshold needs to\nbe tested; jurisdictions that use the replacement value should be\nreviewed to see were the range of threshold sits.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the concerning factors are with\nretrofitting of older homes : 25% of construction cost seems to be\nvery low; concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding\nreviewing other jurisdictions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a four unit apartment bathroom\nremodel could trigger quite an expense. the issue seems to be\nrectifying the disparity between using assessed value as the\nvaluation upon which the threshold percentage is based and\nreviewing what the appropriate threshold should be once the\nthreshold is leveled.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated termite and foundation damage could\ntrigger the threshold.\nMayor Johnson stated she is concerned with how the work is\ncalculated.\nCouncilmember Daysog requesting different scenarios showing how the\nproposed ordinance was better than what is currently in place;\nstated workshops provide an opportunity to have a range of issues\ndiscussed.\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Kerr stated workshops are a good idea;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 13, "text": "workshops should include a wide range of individuals and should be\nnoticed and open.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing the Fire\nMarshal and other Department Heads, including the City Manager and\nPlanning and Building Director, as needed, to take the matter back\nto a workshop open to the public and publicly noticed to resolve\nissues raised and bring other issues to the forefront, particularly\nto look at the equity and value, the threshold amount, and the way\nthat the worth is calculated and projected across the project as\nwell as looking at the on-going operating costs versus the benefit\nof the revised code.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that stakeholder\ncomments should be noted and compared to what staff thinks is\nneeded.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the cost of follow up needs to be\nplaced in the equations.\nThe Fire Marshal stated one and two family dwellings do not have\non-going maintenance costs; inspections are performed by the\nhomeowners.\nMayor Johnson stated examples should include costs for different\ntypes of structures.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested clarification on whether garages are\npart of the square foot determination.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether garages are exempted for single-\nfamily homes and duplexes.\nThe Fire Marshal responded garages would be required to have a\nsprinkler if attached to the dwelling.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a detached garage would need to have\na sprinkler, to which the Fire Marshal responded only if the garage\nis more than 300 square feet.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(06-474) Ordinance No. 2952, \"Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain\nProperty Within the City of Alameda from Open Space (O) to\nCommunity Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by Amending\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 14, "text": "Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property Located at 500\nMaitland Drive. \" Finally passed.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Chuck Corica Golf Course chain\nlink fence was moved back to make room for moving Maitland Drive;\nthe RV Storage was a harsh way to think about a neighborhood.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he was not present when the decision o\nsell the property was made; five acres of the gun range were\ncontaminated and the best use was an RV Storage area; the property\nwas sold for $1 million; the green portion and roadway were sold\nfor approximately $45,000. 1.2 acres was given away for $45,000 and\nshould remain open space.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would vote against rezoning for\nreasons relating to consistencies regarding RV issues on Webster\nStreet.\nMayor Johnson stated the facility is a requirement that the City\nplaced on the developer in the 1970's.\nThe Planner III stated the developer was required to set aside 3\nacres for future expansion of the RV Storage facility when\ntriggered by market demand.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he would support the proposed\nordinance as long as appropriate screening is required to provide a\ngreen shield to soften the commercial property and as long as the\nrequirement is binding; the City has benefited and should do\nsomething for the neighborhood.\nThe Planner III stated the Planning Board included the landscape\nrequirement; the final development plan and design review have a\ncondition that specific landscaping requirements would screen the\nRV's; clarified that the gateway into Harbor Bay would not be\ndisturbed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether an additional review could\nbe added to make sure that the specific landscape requirement\nhappens.\nThe City Attorney responded the additional review would not be\nincluded in a zoning ordinance typically; stated the requested\ncondition is already a condition of the project.\nThe Planner III read the following portion of the condition \"The\ndeveloper shall submit a final landscaping plan. Perimeter\nlandscaping shall be consistent with existing landscaping already\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 15, "text": "established along the Harbor Bay Parkway and Maitland Drive\nfrontages. Landscaping shall provide vell-designed transition zone\nand buffer between the project and surrounding land uses. Perimeter\nlandscaping along the eight-foot - high vinyl clad chain link fence\nshall be of a density and appropriate height (typically two feet\nabove fence) to screen the tops of recreational vehicles from\npublic viewing areas. The landscaping plan is subject to final\napproval by the Planning and Building Director...\"\nMayor Johnson stated the condition is good.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the final decision on the actual\ngreen screen is approved by the Planning and Building Director\nrequested a report back from the Planning and Building Director on\nthe matter.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated Parcel 109-4 and 109-\n2 total 1.2 acres; inquired whether the property is clean.\nThe Planner III responded in the affirmative; stated one portion is\nunder Maitland Drive; the other part is the corporate yard for the\nGolf Course and was not part of the Gun Club; a Phase 1 and Phase 2\nassessment was performed on the original 5 acre facility; a cleanup\nplan was implemented by the County Health Department; the site has\nbeen remediated.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City only received $45,000 for the\nproperty; more of a set back would have been prudent.\nOn the call for the question, the motioned carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor\nJohnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-475) David Kirwin, Alameda, discussed Article 25 of the City\nCharter.\nMayor Johnson requested the City Attorney to provide Mr. Kirwin\nwith additional information on the specific program addressed in\nArticle 25.\n(06-476) Pat Colburn, Alameda, provided handout ; discussed banning\ngas blowers.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Colburn is suggesting banning\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 16, "text": "electric blowers; to which Ms. Colburn responded all leaf blowers\nwould be included.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether other cities have adopted\nordinances banning leaf blowers.\nMs. Colburn responded between twenty and forty California cities\nhave banned leaf blowers.\nMayor Johnson inquired which Bay Area cities have banned leaf\nblowers, to which Ms. Colburn responded Palo Alto and Berkeley.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Berkeley received\ncomplaints from gardeners.\nMs. Colburn responded gardening may take a little longer and\ngardeners may charge the homeowner more, but the matter has not\nbecome a big issue.\nMayor Johnson suggested that staff review what other cities have\ndone.\nThe City Manager responded that staff would provide an Off Agenda\nReport.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated leaf blowers often blow debris into the\nroadway or a neighbor's yard; the City is impacted because of\nadditional clean up.\n(06-477) Deborah James, Alameda, discussed traffic, speeding and\nparking at bus stops.\nMayor Johnson stated the City Manager would pass concerns onto the\nPolice Chief.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated recent emails were received regarding\nspeeding cars.\nThe City Manager stated the Police Chief met with the people in the\nneighborhood.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-478 ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic\nDevelopment Commission, Social Service Human Relations Board and\nClimate Protection Campaign Task Force.\nMayor Johnson nominated Robert A. Bonta for appointment to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 17, "text": "Economic Development Commission Cathy Nielsen and Henry B.\nVillareal for appointment to the Social Service Human Relations\nBoard; and David J. Burton, Stanley M. Schiffman, Ron Silberstein,\nand Lizette Weiss for appointment to the Climate Protection\nCampaign Task Force.\n(06-479) Councilmember deHaan stated that over half of the Tube\nlights are out; the situation is dangerous; requested Cal Trans be\npushed to replace the lights with the new lighting system that was\npromised two to three years ago.\n(06-480) Councilmember Daysog suggested formalizing the use of\nworkshops stated workshops allow people an opportunity to provide\nnon-confrontational input.\n(06-481) Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the contractor for\nthe smooth road paving process.\n(06-482) Mayor Johnson stated some streets have three foot by\nthree foot patches from some type of utility cut inquired whether\nthe responsible party could be required to do a slurry seal over\nthe patches; there is a large patch on Buena Vista Avenue and\nRegent Street.\nThe City Manager responded ordinances would be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that the suggested requirement should be added\nif not already included in the ordinance.\n(06-483) Councilmember deHaan requested information on the paving\nfunding stream; stated he is impressed with the current street\npaving activity.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:40 p.m.\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 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 18, "text": "SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE\nAND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA). , COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) , AND HOUSING\nAUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:07 p.m.\nRoll Call\n- Present : Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority\nMembers / Board Members Daysog, deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner Torrey,\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider :\n(06-052CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property:\nAlameda Landing; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda Community\nImprovement Commission and Catellus; Under negotiation: Price and\nterms\n(06-459CC/06-053CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing\nLitigation; Name of case: Operation Dignity V. Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, City of Alameda, Community Improvement\nCommission and Housing Authority.\nAlex McElree, Operation Dignity Executive Director, stated\nOperation Dignity looks forward to working with Resources for\nCommunity Development (RCD) and the City to put money together to\nbuild the units; the units are vital to Operation Dignity and\nhousing providers; transitional people should be allowed to move\ninto permanent spaces ; urged approval of the Settlement Agreement.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was\nreconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Real\nProperty, Commissioners received a briefing from Real Property\nNegotiator and no action was taken; regarding Existing Litigation,\nCouncil/Commissioners/Authority Members/Board Members met with\nLegal Counsel to discuss the Operation Dignity Lawsuit and agreed\nto a final settlement of the lawsuit; stated the Settlement\nAgreement would be available in the City Clerk's office.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 19, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\n,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) AND\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- -7:25 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m.\nVice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore led\nthe Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call - Present Councilmembers / Authority Members\n/\nCommissioners / Board Members Daysog.\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner\nTorrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson- 6.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-460CC/06-054CIC) Recommendation to approve an Implementation\nAgreement with Operation Dignity and Resources for Community\nDevelopment for the construction of 39 Affordable Rental Units on a\nPortion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese\nstated the Implementation Agreement is a big step in moving forward\nwith affordable housing inquired what would be tradeoff if\nlitigation were to continue.\nThe City Attorney responded the Settlement Agreement would pave the\nway for the City to apply for grant funding and special State funds\nto help build 39 affordable housing units; stated qualifying for\nfunds and specifically tax credit financing would have been\ndifficult for the City without the Settlement Agreement Operation\nDignity is willing to set aside current interest in the property to\nallow the City to receive financing through a tax credit program;\nOperation Dignity would defer leasehold interest for approximately\nseven years, would receive money to compensate for the wait, and\nwould use the money to further enhance affordable housing in the\ncommunity; the City would be relieved of millions of dollars in\nobligations to build the 39 affordable housing units.\nlouncilmember/AuthorityMember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese\nstated millions of dollars would be saved, the City would have\naccess to funds for affordable housing, and precious resources\nwould be saved on legal activities.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 21, "text": "Counci lmember/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese\nmoved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner Torrey seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 6.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:49 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- - 7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present :\nCouncilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chai: Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve\nthe amended contract with Architectural Resources Group [paragraph\nno. 06-056CIC], and the recommendation to approve the amended\ncontract with Komorous-Towey Architects [paragraph no. 06-057CIC]\nwere removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved\napproval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Authority Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n(\n*06-055CIC) Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Community\nImprovement Commission held on September 5, 2006. Approved.\n(06-056CIC)\nRecommendation to approve the amended Contract with\nArchitectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract\namount by $19,860 to provide additional Construction Administration\nServices for the rehabilitation of the Alameda Theater.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated additional money should not be spent\non the theater project until there is a final outcome on the\nlawsuit; commented other agenda items.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested clarification that the $19,860\nAlameda Theater rehabilitation increase and the $5,000 Civic Center\nParking Garage increase were within the theater budget, not part of\nthe contingency.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded additional soft costs were\nexpected; $277,000 was included in the July 26, 2006 budget for\nsaid costs; the contingency would not be used to fund the amended\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n1\nand Redevelopment Authority, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 23, "text": "Contracts.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested that the budget portion of staff\nreports identify whether or not costs are included in the theater\nand garage project budgets in the future.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation; provided\na\nhandout on the budget.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether other increases are\nanticipated, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether a milestone chart would be\navailable, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded a milestone\ncharge would be available within a week or two.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Council should be provided with any\ninformation given to the public ahead of time.\nChair Johnson stated the public should know that parking would not\nbe available at the old Video Maniacs site after September 28.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendations to\napprove the amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group\n[paragraph no. 06-056CIC] and to approve the amended Contract with\nKomorous-Towey Architects [paragraph no. 06-057CIC].\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired where the developer\nstands within the process.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the developer is a little bit\nbehind the garage process; stated the developer is finalizing\nconstruction drawings and would be submitting the drawings for plan\ncheck and to other contractors for pricing.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has met all\nfinancial requirements.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCity is working closely with the Bank of Alameda to finalize the\ndeveloper's financing.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nChair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner deHaan - 1.\n(06-057CIC)\nRecommendation to approve the amended Contract with\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n2\nand Redevelopment Authority, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 24, "text": "Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount\nby $5,000 to provide additional Architectural and Construction\nAdministration Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage.\n[For discussion and motion, refer to the recommendation to approve\nthe amended Contract with Architectural Resources Group paragraph\nno. 06-056CIC. ]\n(*06-461CC/06-058CIC)\nRecommendation to accept the Quarterly\nFinancial Report for Fiscal Year 2006 Fourth Quarter. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(06-462CC/06-059CIC) Public Hearing to consider certification of a\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report, approval of a General\nPlan Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment, a Development Agreement\nAmendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement to replace 1,300,000 square feet of approved\nbut not yet constructed office and research and development uses\nwith 400,000 square feet of office use, 300,000 square feet of\nretail use, 20,000 square feet of health club, and up to 300\nresidential units in the Catellus Mixed Use Development i and\nadoption/introduction of related resolutions/ordinances.\nThe\nproject area if located south of the Oakland Alameda Estuary, north\nof the College of Alameda and the Bayport Residential Project, east\nof Coast Guard Housing and west of Webster Street. The site is in\nthe MX (Mixed Use) Zoning District. Continued to October 17, 2006.\n(06-060CIC) Commissioner deHaan stated the Farmer's Market parking\nsite is for sale; a top priority should be to obtain Webster Street\nparking; requested that the matter be discussed at a future date.\nChair Johnson requested an Off Agenda Report on the matter; stated\nstaff has been working with the owner to buy the property.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:06 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n3\nand Redevelopment Authority, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-09-19", "page": 25, "text": "Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\n4\nand Redevelopment Authority, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nSeptember 19, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf"}