{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 17, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 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(\n06-513) - Proclamation extending a warm welcome to Father Adonay\nand proclaiming greetings and expressions of friendship and\ngoodwill to the people of Asuchio.\nStewart Chen, Social Services Human Relations Board Member (SSHRB) ,\nstated the Sister City workgroup's goal is to increase and foster\nrelationships with cities around the world, as with Japan, China\nand Sweden; the latest project is to increase a friendship city\nrelation with El Salvador; the SSHRB is requesting Council to\npresent a proclamation of recognition; introduced Father Adonay\nMayor Johnson welcomed Father Adonay to the United States and\nAlameda: stated Councilmember Matarrese has been to Father Adonay's\nhome with other Alameda residents.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the proclamation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation.\nThrough an interpreter, Father Adonay stated he is here to\nrepresent the community and the Asuchio City Council and is happy\nto be in California to establish ties of friendship and\ncommunication Asuchio needs helping hands to develop in the\nfuture; poverty and other problems exist in Asuchio; thanked the\nCouncil for inviting him and hopes that the visit will serve to\nincrease the friendship relationship between the two communities\npresented a key to the Mayor and Council.\nMayor Johnson stated the Directiva is the Council in Asuchio;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 2, "text": "inquired how many members are on the Council.\nFather Adonay responded eight members; stated recently a Director\nhas been elected.\nMayor Johnson stated many Directiva members planned to visit\nAlameda but were not able to get through the process; she hopes the\nmembers are able to visit Alameda soon.\nThe interpreter read an excerpt from a letter written from the\nAsuchio Directiva.\nMayor Johnson presented the proclamation, City plate, and mugs to\nFather Adonay\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 06-514]\nwere removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n(06-514) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on October 3, 2006.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he provided corrected language for\nthe October 3, 2006 Regular Meeting minutes to the City Clerk's\noffice.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the minutes with noted\ncorrection.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*06-515) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,516,168.84.\n( (*06-516) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for\nthe 2005-2006 Fiscal Year. Accepted.\n(*06-517) Recommendation to approve Contract in the amount of\n$41,256 to Sunnyvale Building Maintenance for Cleaning Service for\nthe Police Administration Building. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 3, "text": "(\n*06-518) Resolution No. 14029, \"Authorizing the Purchase of Two\nNew Type-3 Fire Ambulances Using the North County Fire Protection\nDistrict's Competitive Bid Award and Approving a Purchase Agreement\nwith Leader Industries in an Amount Not to Exceed $268,925.29.\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-519) Public Hearing to consider a General Plan Amendment\n(GP05-0001) to remove a 4.6-acre portion from the 10-acre planned\nEstuary Park in the MU-5 (Specified Mixed Use - Northern\nWaterfront, Willow Street to Oak Street), and rezoning (R05-003)\nfor properties located at 2241 and 2243 Clement Street from M-2\nGeneral Industrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4/PD Neighborhood\nResidential/Planned Development Combining District in order to\nallow for residential development of up to 242 dwelling units. The\nproperties are located north of Clement Street, west of Oak Street,\nand adjacent to the Dakland-Alameda Estuary. Applicant Francis\nCollins dba Boatworks and\n(06-519A) Introduction of Ordinance Rezoning Portions of Property\nLocated at 2241 and 2243 Clement Avenue from M-2, General\nIndustrial (Manufacturing) District to R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential and PD, Planned Development Combining District (R-\n4/PD). Introduced.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of General Plan Amendment) : Robert McGillis,\nPhilip Banta Associates Architecture (provided handout) ; Greg\nHarper, Attorney for Applicant.\nOpponents (Not in favor of General Plan Amendment) : Joseph Woodard,\nEstuary Park Action Committee (EPAC) (provided handout) ; Dorothy\nFreeman, EPAC; Sue Field; Alameda Jay Ingram, Alameda; Deb Greene,\nEPAC; Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda: Jason Snyder, Alameda.\n***\nouncilmember Daysog left the dais at 8:26 p.m. and returned at\n8:28 p.m.\n***\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 4, "text": "Following Jay Ingram's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the\npark space would remain at ten acres.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the General Plan calls for ten\nacres of open space; stated only a portion of the ten acres is\nwithin the applicant's property.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the ten acres would be kept as open\nspace under all circumstances.\nThe Supervising Planner responded residential rezoning would not be\nrecommended for the ten acres.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the green area was ten acres and\nwould stay proposed open space, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nFollowing Robert McGillis' comments, Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired\nwhether Mr. McGillis stated that he did not think a General Plan\nAmendment was necessary, to which Mr. McGillis responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson requested further explanation on Project Site #9.\nMr. McGillis stated Project Site #9 shows what the shoreline would\nlook like, which would include a boardwalk, boat docks, a pier,\nwalkway, and bikeway.\nMayor Johnson inquired what are the structures, to which Mr.\nMcGillis responded two family units.\nMayor Johnson stated the structures look very high; inquired what\nwould be the height of the structures.\nMr. McGillis responded the structures would be 35 foot, three-story\ntownhomes.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 42 duplexes were proposed for\nthe 7.2 acres in 2001.\nMr. McGillis responded in the affirmative; stated Mr. Collins only\nowned one of the two parcels at that time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many acres are on the additional\nparcel, to which Mr. McGillis responded 2. 4 acres.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether approximately 115 units would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 5, "text": "be on the original property, to which Mr. McGillis responded\npossibly.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 242 units would be on the ten\nacres.\nMr. McGillis responded in the affirmative. stated there is more\nland; the 25% inclusionary criteria triggered the State density\nbonus.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other things have been put\ninto the equation to push the number up, to which Mr. McGillis\nresponded in the affirmative.\nFollowing Greg Harper's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired what are\nthe options in terms of rezoning the property; stated Project Site\n#9 structures are very tall and not like other Alameda waterfront\nproperty.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff recommended R-4 with a\nPlanned Development (PD) overlay stated Housing Element\nconsistency could be maintained with R-3/PD or R-2/PD.\nMayor Johnson inquired about the height limit, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded the height limit could be addressed\nwith a PD overlay.\nMayor Johnson stated the structures look like a big wall on the\nwaterfront; now is not the time to start this type of development ;\ninquired what would be the height limit for R-2/PD, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded 30 feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the height limit is higher for R-\n4/PD, to which the Supervising Planner responded the height limit\nwould be 35 feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether height adjustments could be made\nwith a PD overlay, to which the Supervising Planner responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the drawings do not show 300 feet\nbetween the houses and the shoreline; the General Plan requires 300\nfeet; inquired whether ten acres are approximated when the 300 feet\nis carried from east to west across the parcel's waterfront, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated MU-5 does not just accommodate the\nparcel referenced by the attorney and architect, but also\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 6, "text": "encompasses the parcel south of Clement Avenue as well as west; the\nintention was never to put all 300 units on the little piece of\nproperty; inquired whether the property is meant to have a 300-foot\nspan from the water to whatever is developed is residential, mixed-\nuse according to the General Plan was residential, mixed use, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the property could be rezoned\nand still have the potential of the ten-acre park, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired what is the nearby residential zoning.\nThe Supervising Planner responded Mr. Snyder's Elm Street property\nis zoned R-4; stated the Oak Street property, south of Clement\nAvenue and along Oak Street, is zoned R-5.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the areas shown on the zoning map\nare consistent with the General Plan.\nThe Supervising Planner responded generally the areas are\nconsistent with the exception of some of the M-2 zoning within the\nMU-5 General Plan designation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the intention was never to cram 242 units\nonto the single parcel the 13.89 acres could possibly have 333\nhousing units after setting aside land for the park, roads, etc;\nthe General Plan does not state that all residential units have to\nbe shoehorned on the one little piece of property; other parcels\ncan accommodate residential in the area.\nMayor Johnson stated the Planning Board went through a process of\nreviewing areas for consistency with the General Plan ten years\nago; other uses make the area R-4 commercial manufacturing, not the\nresidential structures; she does not recall seeing large\nresidential structures in the area; the area would be more\nconsistent with surrounding areas if zoned R-2.\nThe Supervising Planner concurred with Mayor Johnson, as long as\nthere is a PD overlay provision.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Collins' proposal comes out to be\napproximately 26 units per acre; the math comes out to be\napproximately 17 units per gross acre when looking at the\nSupervising Planner's conversions of one unit per 2,000 square\nfeet; the Collins' proposal is coming in too high and argues for\nsomething lower than R-4; growth is encouraged, but at a density\nthat fits the City of Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated other residential structures in the area are\nnot as dense as would be allowed in R-4 or R-5; other uses in the\nareas are the reason for the zoning.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the original proposal included 42\nduplexes with 84 units on 7.2 acres; 2.4 acres were added; 4.2\nacres were extracted for open space; now over 300 units are\nproposed; inquired how long the owner has been in control of the\nproperty, to which the Supervising Planner responded 20 years.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the likelihood of getting the\nadditional 5.8 acres from the other area.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the City's ability to get the\nland comes down to the City's ability to purchase the land; stated\nthe City's goal should be to purchase the land; the applicant is\nopen to discussing the land purchase.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City looked at the 10\nacres immediately off Clement Avenue for grant purposes at one\npoint.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the City submitted a grant\napplication to the State for money to purchase Estuary Park.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired where the land is positioned, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded where the land is shown on\nthe General Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he saw a setback off of Clement\nAvenue.\nThe Supervising Planner stated he was not aware of one.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated tremendous pressure exists to build and\nconvert industrial sites into residential sites on both sides of\nthe Estuary warehouse land value is approximately $2.2 million per\nacre, manufacturing is approximately $2 million per acre, and flex\nspace is approximately $1.9 million per acre; the gross residential\nvalue is approximately $8 million to $11 million per acre; lessons\nneed to be learned from Oakland; the density is too high; the\nCollins' numbers are more consistent with the other side of the\nEstuary [Oakland] Council needs to have serious discussions on the\nnumbers desired, if rezoning is considered; he cannot vote on the\nmatter until he is sure that he understands what the density would\nbe.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the open space\nrequirement within the 4.6 acres under R-4.\nMayor Johnson stated she is not prepared to support the project\nunder R-4; inquired what would be the open space requirement under\nR-2.\nThe Supervising Planner responded open space requirements vary;\nstated each unit must provide 600 square feet of open space under\nR-2, 500 square feet under R-3, and 400 square feet under R-4.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what is the typical unit per gross\nacre under R-2.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Marina Cove development was\nzoned R-4/PD; stated the lot sizes average approximately 3,500 to\n4,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired how many dwelling units there would\nbe per gross acre, to which the Supervising Planner responded the\nMarina Cove development has approximately 12 units per gross acre.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he initially had concerns with the\nMarina Cove development, but the development is getting better.\nThe Supervising Planner stated a variety of different densities\nhave been approved using R-4/PD; the open space per unit\nrequirement varies from zone to zone.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council action could be\nbroken down into two components; stated one component would be to\nrezone a portion of the parcel to match the General Plan and the\nother would be to deny a General Plan Amendment.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the General Plan calls for a ten-\nacre or more Estuary Park running 300 feet from the shore from the\nEstuary south, specifies mixed-use, and also specifies that there\nshould be capacity for 300 residential units in the remaining\nparcels north of Clement Avenue and the two parcels south of\nClement Avenue.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the General Plan language states up\nto 300 units; stated the paperwork states 300, but the General Plan\nstates up to 300 units.\nCouncilmember Matarrese clarified that he stated capacity for 300\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 9, "text": "residential units; stated the City accepts applications and\nregulates development ; the proposed development is not a City\nproject he is inclined to deny the request for a General Plan\nAmendment because the General Plan Amendment preserves the chance\nto have an Estuary Park and indicates that there are approximately\nthree sites that would allow up to 300 dwelling units.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the request for\nthe General Plan Amendment.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated R-4 zoning is too high; the zoning\nshould be R-2 to match what exists in the area; the level of\ndevelopment [R-2] also matches the intent of the General Plan to\nspread [units] across the three parcels.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was a motion on the zoning.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many dwelling units there would be\nif the 4.8 acres were rezoned to R-2 and 600 square feet was\nconsidered for open space, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded 80 to 100 units.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is a comparable project, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded the Marina Cove Project.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is a comparable open space\nproject.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Marina Cove Project is not\na good example because of the private open space yards within each\nunit and the Project has a 1.5-acre park.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated numbers need to be nailed down; the\n4.81 acres equals 3.84 acres when streets and sidewalks, etc. are\nextracted; 3.84 acres translates to 167,618 square feet; 167,618\nsquare feet divided by 2,000 is 83 units; 83 units divided by the\ngross acres equals 17 units per acre.\nThe Supervising Planner stated his previous number [80 to 100\nunits) is wrong; the high end would be closer to 83 units the low\nend would be lower than 83 units.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she is more interested in the high end,\nand that is the number she wants nailed down.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated that 17 units are better than the\napplicant's proposed 26 units; the question is whether 17 units are\ndesirable.\nThe Supervising Planner stated a commitment has been made in the\nHousing Element to get a certain number of affordable housing units\nin the MU-5 area.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the commitment is not to put all of\nthe units on the parcel.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the owner reviewed other\ndevelopment opportunities.\nMr. Harper responded a proposal was submitted for work/live stated\nthe General Plan dictates what can be done.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what would be the value to sell to\nthe City.\nMr. Harper responded the land becomes more valuable closer to the\nEstuary the City wants half of the applicant's property and also\nwants the most valuable half; a tremendous commitment would be\nrequired and is one that the City should have undertaken long ago.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether cleanup evaluations have been\nperformed.\nMr. Harper responded the cleanup is almost complete.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the cleanup is almost\ncomplete even though the buildings have not been removed.\nMr. Harper responded surveys have been done; stated cleanup has\nbeen underway for a long time; the land is not that contaminated;\nthe applicant intends to clean up to full standards.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether determinations have been made\non the park portion, to which Mr. Harper responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated cleanup considerations would need to be\naddressed if the City purchased the property.\nMr. Harper stated the applicant would perform the cleanup if the\nCity wants to buy the property.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 60 [foot] setbacks are part\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 11, "text": "of Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) requirements.\nMr. Harper responded the BCDC requirement is to provide maximum\nfeasible public access.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the setback on the waterfront\nconceptual drawing.\nMr. Harper stated the Corp of Engineers owns property between the\nwaterfront and the water line; the setback is between 10 and 12\nfeet in addition to the Corp property.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many housing units could be in the three\nMU-5 areas, if zoned R-1 or R-2.\nThe Supervising Planner responded 300 units, if zoned R-2 or R-3,\nand less than half [of 300 units] if zoned R-1.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there is a high range of 80 to\n83 units in the 4.8 acres under R-2 zoning with leaving the PD out,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired when rezoning would be done for the other\nparcels not included tonight.\nThe Supervising Planner responded a time has not been scheduled\nstated tonight's portion has been expedited because the applicant\nhas been insistent.\nMayor Johnson stated the rezoning should be brought back to Council\nfor the other parcels.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there seems to be a higher percentage\nsought [ for the park area] north of Clement Avenue; inquired why\nthe same percentage would not be sought all the way through.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the General Plan vision is a ten\nacre park with a minimum of 300 feet along the waterfront. Mr.\nDutra's property has a long frontage and is not very deep; the City\nwould acquire almost all of the Dutra property if the City proceeds\nwith the acquisition of property for a park; the City would acquire\nonly half of the Fox-Collins' property.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated 300 feet [along the Estuary results in\nten acres; the Dutra property is no longer 300 feet, but is deeper.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the parcel maps shows the 300-foot\nban picks up almost all of the Dutra property.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the open space is defined by the General Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he is concerned that there should be\nmore property than what is shown.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the proposal is based on the General\nPlan language; the General Plan provides guidance in some of the\nexplanatory text.\nMayor Johnson stated Council is not adopting a diagram of how the\nopen space would be configured.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the diagram shows the general\ndistribution of land use throughout the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the previous motion upheld the 300- -\nfoot description as written in the General Plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of rezoning to R-2/PD the\nMU-5 area encompassed within the proposed project plot that does\nnot include the required portion for the Estuary Park, as per the\ndescription in the General Plan, and bringing the other MU-5\nparcels back to the Planning Board for a recommendation to the\nCouncil at a future date.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed rezoning\nprecludes the densities that the Collins' property originally\nreviewed, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember deHaan -1.\nMayor Johnson stated Mr. Siden indicated that potential funding\nwould be available in the next couple years through ballot\nmeasures the City should review how the property could be\nacquired; a General Plan open space designation is one thing, but\nsomeone else owning the land is another thing to do; Council gave\ndirection to bring back a proposal for a Beltline Task Force;\nsuggested having a similar Task Force, or perhaps use the same Task\nForce, to determine how to purchase the property.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson; clarified\nthat the City has been serious about the matter before; Council put\na million on the table and the Parks and Recreation Department put\ntogether an application for funding twice but was unsuccessful;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 13, "text": "Council is serious about the matter and will be serious in pursuing\nthe purchase; the next level is to make sure there are on-going\nsearches along with what is being done with the Beltline.\nMayor Johnson stated finding money for City parks is very\ndifficult.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she likes the idea of utilizing the\nBeltline Task Force; citizens' expertise would be pulled together\nefforts would not be duplicated and would be coordinated; hopefully\nthe same staff person could be utilized on both issues.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated one thing to consider is the option of\nnot doing anything; there is something to be said about the virtues\nof industrial space in light of the fact that said space is\nreceding on the other side of the Estuary and other parts of the\nEast Bay; industrial space equates to jobs; potentially, a number\nof jobs will be out at Alameda Point; building does not have to\noccur everywhere; there are costs associated with open space; he\nlikes that the City is moving forward with the Beltline property;\nthe General Plan designates a plan for open space; however,\nsometimes hard choices need to be made; he would rather put focus\non the Beltline property and contemplate whether to continue\nenvisioning the area as open space rather than industrial space\nbecause of jobs.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda is short on open space; there are few\nopportunities for adding open space to the City's inventory; the\nCity needs to take the opportunities when possible; the area is\nresidential also; the neighborhood was built before there was\nplanning the area would not have been developed the same way if\nplanning had been available; she is not convinced that the area\nshould go back to industrial.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Council voted unanimously to\nkeep the General Plan the way it is.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated funding is a concern; previously, $4\nmillion was requested for the park area; the City would be\nobtaining 4. 2 acres during the transaction and then would need to\nlook at the obligation of trying to figure out how to obtain the\nother acres as the acres become available.\nMayor Johnson stated the Task Force would look into acquiring the\nentire property, not part.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested detailed information on what the\nmaximum number of units would be for R-2 levels and an explanation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 14, "text": "of the passive space requirements when the matter comes back to\nCouncil: stated he is concerned about 83 units; other passive\nspaces are needed; requested staff to please provide what said\namount of space would be so Council understands what is normally\nrequired; that he does not believe that it would be 83 units; the\nnumber would drop down maybe another quarter of an acre.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated his understanding of the 83 units is\npredicated on the 17 units per gross acre which he interprets to be\nthe maximum end, which could be lower.\nMayor Johnson stated Council direction could incorporate the\ndirection given two weeks ago for the Beltline Task Force; the\nBeltline Task Force could also be the Task Force for the entire ten\nacre Estuary Park.\nThe City Manager stated that Council approved developing the\nBeltline Task Force; the scope would be expanded.\n(06-520) Resolution No. 14030, \"Adoption of Resolution Declaring\nthe Intent of the City Council to Rezone the 22-Acre Beltline\nRailroad Property Consistent with Voter-Approved Measure E (Open\nSpace/Park Use) as Soon as the Property is Acquired by the City of\nAlameda. Adopted.\nThe Parks and Recreation Director provided a brief update.\nDoug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, stated a lot of cities\nwould be envious of Alameda realizing the opportunity for a park\nwith land in the heart of the City.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated it is nice to know that the City has\nmoved quickly despite some contrary community comment.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked the City Attorney and City Manager\nstaff for turning the Resolution around so quickly.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-521) Recommendation to approve Request for Proposals for\npurchase of five all-electric vehicles for the City fleet.\nThe Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff is comfortable with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 15, "text": "purchasing a particular product.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he has done a lot of\nresearch on electric vehicles; stated staff feels eight vendors\nwould be able to provide proposals.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated charging station locations are a\nconcern; inquired whether the majority would be in the City Hall\narea.\nThe Public Works Director responded the charging stations would be\nscattered throughout the City stated there are some charging\nstations in the City already; there are two stations at the Lincoln\nAvenue parking lot which can charge four vehicles; Alameda Power\nand Telcom has a charging station that can charge one vehicle and\nhas two in storage; one charging station would be needed at City\nHall West; another charging station would be in the City Hall\nparking lot; the Police Department parking enforcement officers use\nelectric vehicles; locations are still being reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the staff recommendation is the first\neffort in converting a lot of the City vehicles to electric; the\nMaster Plan needs to address charging station locations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Request for Proposals is a great\nstep and is a long time coming; he appreciates all the work that\nhas been done and is ready to move forward.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-522) Recommendation to appropriate $100,000 in Measure B funds\nto update the City's Traffic Model, authorize preparation of a\nGeneral Plan Amendment (GPA) to the Transportation Element, and\ndirect staff to include the proposed transportation policies\nrecommended by the Transportation Commission in the GPA.\nThe City Engineer provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he likes Transportation Policy No.\n1 through 6; he is a little concerned with Transportation Policy\nNo. 7; he interprets Transportation Policy No. 7 to state it is\nokay if the Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street traffic has a bad\nlevel of service; he is concerned with having an overarching policy\nthat overrides the impacts, which should be evaluated on a case-by-\ncase basis; citizens could say that the level of service might be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 16, "text": "degraded at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street but nothing can be\ndone because of Policy No 7.\nThe City Engineer stated the community would have the opportunity\nto review the impact levels through the environmental review\nprocessi currently the General Plan stops at level of service D;\nanything below Level D is not allowable; decisions could be made\nregarding acceptable minutes of delay and service levels through\nthe review processi level of service F might not be acceptable and\ncould be discussed through the environmental review process.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the staff analysis notes that Policy No.\n4 is consistent with the current General Plan's Transportation\nElement policies; she does not recall an analysis on the overall\nCity network when environmental impact reviews (EIR) are done;\ninquired whether Transportation Policy No. 4 is followed when EIR's\nare done currently.\nThe Civil Engineer responded developers often times lay out the\nnetwork, such as pedestrian and bicycle corridors and transit\nroutes, during the EIR process.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she thinks about streets and roads\nthroughout the City, not just in the adjacent neighborhood, when\nshe reads the term \"overall City network;\" the wording might need\nto be changed if her interpretation is wrong.\nJohn Knox White, Transportation Commission Chair, stated that Vice\nMayor Gilmore's interpretation is correct; an example would be the\nAlameda Landing EIR, which will be coming to Council: specifically,\nthe EIR addresses bike parking and pedestrian issues within the\nproject, not throughout the City; the Transportation Commission has\nrequested that the scope be broadened, which is the exact intent of\nTransportation Policy No. 4; streets next to the project are not\nbeing reviewed now.\nMayor Johnson stated \"TMP\" means Transportation Master Plan on\nPolicy No. 6; inquired what \"TDM\" means.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded \"TDM\" means\nTransportation Demand Management stated an example would be the\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) discussion on the\nPreliminary Development Concept at Alameda Point options (other\nthan building roadways) are discussed to mitigate a project's\ntraffic impact.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the process would be along the lines\nof a program that releases the findings, to which the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 17, "text": "Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether reducing traffic would be discussed,\nnot just mitigating traffic.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative;\nstated discussions would address increasing the mode share away\nfrom driving so that surrounding neighborhood impacts and\ndevelopment impacts would be less.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested background on how the City went\nthrough the public communication feedback to derive the policies.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair inquired whether Councilmember\ndeHaan meant the Transportation Master Plan specifically, to which\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded a number of public\nSub Task Force meetings were held with various Boards and\nCommissions after Council approved the Transportation Master Plan\nin 2004; stated the City started a website that involved an e-mail\nmailing list; twelve or thirteen public meetings have been held on\nthe Transportation Master Plan; he does not want to tie the\nTransportation Master Plan process into the seven policies; since\nJune, the Transportation Commission worked under the EIR guidelines\nto create the seven recommended policies the Transportation\nCommission looked at a number of EIRs; the seven recommended\npolicies reflect the spirit of what the Transportation Master Plan\nhas been moving forward with but has not adopted yet; the\nTransportation Commission wanted to recommend to Council that the\npolicies be guidelines, whether adopted in the Transportation\nGeneral Plan or not, when looking at the EIRs.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the seven policies are a\ndirect outgrowth of the community input, to which the\nTransportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Policy No. 7 addressed a 55\nsecond delay, to which the Transportation Commission Chair\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the level of a 55-second\ndelay], to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded\nLevel E.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what level most intersections are\ntoday, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded the\nmajority are between Level B and C.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 18, "text": "Counci lmember deHaan stated Level E is quite concerning inquired\nwhether the public had concerns or expressed a desire for Level E.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded the recommendation is\nto acknowledge congestion, look at intersections, and have a public\nprocess in which a specific determination would be made stated the\n55-second delay was just an example.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Policy No. 7's intent\nis\nto look at the significance of automobile congestion versus a trade\noff for being able to accommodate and encourage mass transit.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded that much of the\ndiscussion was around proposals for eight and nine lane\nintersections to mitigate congestion at Atlantic Avenue and Webster\nStreet; stated the Commission felt the proposals were not in\nholding with Alameda's character; the Commission felt rather than\nbuilding wide intersections and super high speed wide roads that\ncut neighborhoods off, that it might be better to accept certain\ncongestion levels at commuter peak hours.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Policy No. 7 states that congestion\nis not considered to be a significant environmental impact he\nwould like to see Policy No. 7 address a trigger point that the\nTransportation Commission Chair explained; studies and a public\nprocess should be done to weigh the balance when faced with\nmeasures that would be more detrimental than the congestion which\nwould result if it stays the way it is; an example would be\nexpanding the Appezzato Parkway and Webster Street intersection to\nmultiple lanes, which would be a disaster.\nMayor Johnson stated Policies No. 1 through 6 look like good goals;\nPolicy No. 7 should be reviewed because impacts should be\nunderstood; inquired whether Policy No. 7 would omit a Level D\nrating in the analysis of intersections.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded the current\nTransportation Master Plan recommendations still have Level D; the\nproposed recommendation would identify intersections ahead of time\nhigher congestion might be acceptable at certain times of the day.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he read Policy No. 7 as putting\ntraffic planning on autopilot; certain congestions are bound to\noccur at certain places, but would not be considered a significant\nenvironmental impact based upon Policy No. 7; more lanes being\ncontemplated for a certain road is a good example of where lanes\nare the solution but the medicine would kill the patient the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 19, "text": "process works in that people are able to step up and acknowledge\nthe problem and other options are reviewed; he feels that Policy\nNo. 7 needs to be flushed out.\nMayor Johnson stated that Policy No. 7's language needs work;\nPolicies No. 1 through 6 look like good goals to have; the policies\nshould be changed to be more like guidelines.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated the recommendation is\ntwofold; the first recommendation is that the policies are\nguidelines for the EIR policy the second recommendation is to go\nforward with the TMP and adopt the TMP as policies into the General\nPlan as part of the Transportation Element the Transportation\nCommission wanted to get the recommendations to Council before a\nnumber of very large EIR'S came up so that the recommendations\ncould be considered as guideline policies.\nMayor Johnson stated the policies are good because the policies\naddress the issue of traffic reduction, not just mitigation and the\nTravel Choice shows that traffic reduction is possible if the right\nefforts are made; she is okay with Policies No. 1 through 6; Policy\nNo. 7 needs more work to make sure the intent is correct.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated at the Transportation\nCommission meeting next week, the policies going forward with the\nTMP would be discussed.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the A through F level of service\nratings would change, to which the Transportation Commission Chair\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Policy No. 7's first sentence could be\ninterpreted more broadly in that the Policy is not just about\ncongestion but is about other impacts associated with congestion\nsuch as noise and air quality.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he has an additional concern with\nPolicy No. 7; already many activities occurring across the Estuary\nhave impacts on the City's intersections; Oak Street to Ninth\nAvenue is a good example; inquired whether situations might occur\nwhere widening or creating additional automotive traffic lane\noptions should be considered.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded the 1990 General Plan\nspecifically states that increasing through capacity on the Island\nis not to happen in order to keep the traffic volume down.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated periodically widening and lane changes\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 20, "text": "are done.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated widening and lane\nchanges are one of the reasons the Transportation Commission\nbrought up the matter; continually, plans come forward to widen and\nchange lanes.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether widening or lane changes are\nhealthy, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded the\nCommission felt that roads should not be widened.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether existing roads were being addressed,\nto which the Transportation Commission Chair responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe City Engineer stated that the Public Works Department disagrees\nwith the Transportation Commission Chair; currently the General\nPlan discourages cut-through traffic, not cross-Island traffic;\nwidening lanes is okay.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the issue seems very restrictive and\nthe City should not be limited.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation\nCommission felt the issue was restrictive and wanted to bring the\nmatter to Council before time was spent talking about the TMP .\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the policy could be written to be\nflexible, to which the Transportation Commission Chair responded a\nflexible policy could be written but would be a continuation of\nwhat already exists.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would want more interpretation on\nthe impacts and how to narrow down the impacts; he would like to\nkeep all roadways 25 miles per hour, which is the best policy;\ninquired whether a State policy addresses something different.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the standards are called to set traffic\nspeeds on Otis Drive, to which the Transportation Commission Chair\nresponded 85th percentile.\nMayor Johnson stated she does not have a problem with the 25 miles\nper hour speed limit; Otis Drive is a State highway; very few roads\nhave speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour; the City does not\nneed speed limits higher than 25 miles per hour; practically every\nAlameda Street is a neighborhood.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would like to review some streets\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 21, "text": "that have speed limits of 35 miles per hour.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated a survey was mailed out\nto a random sample of 1,200 Alameda Power and Telecom customers ;\nspeed limit was one of the specific questions ; there was\noverwhelming support for not raising the speed limit.\nThe City Engineer stated classification systems are used for\nfunding purposes the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) looks at\nspeeds an impact exists if speed is lower than the speed\ndesignated for an arterial. impacts have to be mitigated.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda's arterials are different than other\ncities and should not be compared with other cities; Alameda does\nnot have true arterials.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the roadway\nalterations policies being fairly tight restrictions provide a\ndirection that moves away from reliance on single occupancy\nvehicles; goals need to be met at some point; planning can be\ndriven from policies rather than a dictate for a 35 mile per hour\nfour-lane road; policies need to be reviewed carefully; he likes\nall of the policies, except Policy No. 7; Policy No. 7 does not\nmeet the explanation and intent that has been given; Policy No. 7\ncould use some polishing, but the intent is good.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated he supports the draft policies and\nthe work of the Transportation Commission; the entire point of the\nseven policies is to make the actual costs of driving automobiles\nmore explicit; society has been slow in recognizing and accounting\nfor the costs; waiting in traffic for five to ten minutes when a\ndraw bridge is up is more than Level F but is not classified as a\nsignificant impact because it is part of the price of being in\nAlameda; he rejects any suggestion to make Webster Street and\nAppezzato Parkway an eight-lane intersection in order to\naccommodate the few hours per day that there might be high traffic;\nPolicy No. 7's intent is to find other ways to solve the problem\ninstead of encouraging more cars on the road and adding to the\nproblem; urged Council to support the staff findings and\nrecommendations so that the seven policies and traffic study can\nmove forward.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what language [in Policy No. 1] would\nbe more satisfactory to staff.\nThe City Engineer responded Policy No. 1's language is not the\nissue; stated streets would need to be labeled in a way not to call\nthe streets arterials and would need to be designed in a way to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 22, "text": "disperse the traffic.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City could live with\nPolicy No. 1, or whether the policy would need to be modified.\nThe City Engineer responded impacts could be reviewed through the\nenvironmental review and the wording could be changed at that time,\nor mitigations could be addressed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the process would be\nconsistent with the Transportation Commission.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded in the affirmative\nstated the intent is to give direction ahead of time so that the\nEIR'S do not have mitigations that do not make sense; The\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board would have discussions\nand Council would be able to make decisions based upon the traffic\ndata by next June or July.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Council wanted to give some\ndirection on Policy No. 7.\nMayor Johnson responded work needs to be done on Policy No. 7's\nlanguage and would be done through the environmental impact\nanalysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether further clarification and\nexpansion would be requested for Policy No. 7.\nMayor Johnson responded all policies, not only Policy No.\n7;\nreviewing the impacts of all seven policies is good; information on\nthe policies' impacts is not available.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated if Council approves doing the study,\ntesting could be done by running the policies through the new model\nif Council approves doing the study, which only is possible if the\n$100,000 in Measure B funds is appropriated.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of expeditiously moving\nforward with the appropriation so that the polices can be tested\nand bringing back the policies as rapidly as possible, through the\nTransportation Commission and Planning Board, so that Council can\nreceive the benefit of the recommendation from the two Boards.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the policies are being\naccepted as a draft or Council is adopting the policies.\nMayor Johnson responded money would be allocated to move forward\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 23, "text": "with the studies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated funds need to be allocated for the\nmodel : ; inquired whether the policies need to be tested using the\nnew model.\nThe City Engineer responded Council would need to adopt the\npolicies in order to have a General Plan amendment; the traffic\nanalysis needs to be done if policies are adopted.\nThe Public Works Director stated Council would be giving direction\nto begin the analysis of the policies as well as the previous\npolicies; information would come back to Council through the\nPlanning Board and the Transportation Commission with a\nrecommendation as to whether or not there are certain intersections\nthat Council may want to accept a higher level of service because\nof the recognition of the encouragement of pedestrian or bicycle\naccess or transit; Council would be allocating the money to begin\nthe analysis.\nlouncilmember Matarrese stated the policies are not policies but\nare a test suit of data or parameters that are going to be run\nthrough a model to see what happens at the end of the model.\nThe Public Works Director stated the policies might eventually\nbecome the approved policies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether currently the policies are\nnot policies, to which the Pubic Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair stated the Transportation\nCommission's intent is that the policies are specific policies that\nwould be tested before the policies are being adopted; the\nTransportation Commission was hopeful that the Council would accept\nthe policies as guidelines for reviewing EIRs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he wished to modify his motion.\nThe Public Works Director stated the current General Plan needs to\nbe used to review the EIR; the policies could not be used as\nguidelines if the policies are not consistent with the General\nPlan.\nMayor Johnson stated the next step would be to amend the General\nPlan if Council likes the way the policies work.\nThe Public Works Director stated the process would be to amend the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 24, "text": "Transportation Element in the General Plan.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the intent would be not to amend the\npolicies as part of the EIR process until the analysis is\ncompleted.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff's opinion is that the\nGeneral Plan amendment would need to be initiated in order to use\nthe policies the associated analysis, with the General Plan\namendment, is not expected to be complete until September of next\nyear.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired which guideline is in conflict\nwith the General Plan.\nThe Public Works Director responded the existing General Plan\nstates that the level of service for intersections should be Level\nD; mitigation needs to be provided when a traffic analysis is run\nin an EIR and a level of service F is noted at an intersection;\nstated mitigation is done by adding lanes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated another mitigation could be found\nother than adding lanes; he was referring to a conflict with the\nGeneral Plan; the General Plan states that mitigation is necessary\nwhen a certain level of service is hit; widening roadways is only\none way to mitigate the service.\nThe Public Works Director stated the General Plan is only tied to\nlevel of service at intersections, which is measured by delay; the\nGeneral Plan is very motor vehicle focused and all the policies\ntend to be motor vehicle focused; TDM is encouraged but there is no\ndetailed information on deductions for TDM.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the policies do not conflict with\nthe General Plan; the General Plan requires a level of service.\nThe Pubic Works Director stated that the General Plan also includes\nCapital Improvement Projects that add lanes.\nMayor Johnson stated the Capital Improvement Projects do not need\nto be done; inquired whether the General Plan states that the only\nway to mitigate traffic is by adding lanes.\nThe Pubic Works Director responded the General Plan states that the\npolicy is Level D for intersections.\nMayor Johnson stated there are countless ways to mitigate the\nproblem; inquired whether practice is limited to mitigating Level D\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 25, "text": "service by expanding lanes.\nThe Supervising Planner responded balancing and thinking about all\nmodes of transportation are needed, particularly with proposed\nmitigations; stated the policies will go through a rigorous study ;\nthe community would be involved.\nMayor Johnson stated she does not see an inconsistency with the\nGeneral Plan; inquired whether other mitigations can be proposed.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated for an\nimpact at Central Avenue and Eighth Street, mitigation could be\ndone by taking out parking, adding travel lanes, and taking out\ntrees; the analysis might say that the mitigation should not be\ndone.\nMayor Johnson stated General Plan inconsistencies need to be\naddressed when the policies come back.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the policies could be applied as\nwritten with the condition that unless there is a specific\nreference in the General Plan that requires the widening of a\nroadway, the policies could be used as a guidance or the policies\ncould be used if there is a specific intersection that will be\nwidened beyond the width of the approaching roadway specifically\ncalled out in the General Plan in text; he is betting that there\nare very few instances in the General Plan that state traffic lanes\nwould be added.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the project goal is to come back\nwith a General Plan amendment to adopt a Transportation Element.\n;\ninconsistencies may be found.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a secondary goal is to apply the\nprinciples to EIR'S that are coming before Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council is looking at the policies as\nguidelines and not accepted policies per se.\nMayor Johnson stated the guidelines would be tested and analyzed in\nlong-range plans and would become policies that would become part\nof the General Plan; the idea is to use the policies as guidelines\nin considering EIR'S in the short term.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he interprets a guideline as an\ninitiation point; making the project work or taking care of the\nsituation within the guidelines is fine; otherwise justification\nand mitigation need to be looked at beyond guidelines; guidelines\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 26, "text": "guide to a solution; initially, the policies would be run through\nthe model on the way to a General Plan amendment and modified as\nneeded; then, the policies would be used as interim guidance (with\nthe exception of Policy No. 7, which needs some rework) with the\nqualification that the General Plan would prevail if there is a\nspecific requirement in the General Plan that is contrary.\nMayor Johnson stated it is important to make sure the requirement\nis really contrary.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated contrary means roadways would not be\nwidened to create additional automobile travel lanes; contrary to\nthe General Plan would be to widen \"X' Street with additional\ntravel lanes as specified.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a lot of evaluation would not be\nnecessary; only certain intersections need to be mitigated; the\nissue is being considered bigger than it is.\nMayor Johnson disagreed with Councilmember deHaan; stated the\ninterpretation being reviewed is that the policies cannot be used\nas guidelines because the policies are inconsistent with the\nGeneral Plan; the policies could be used as guidelines in the\ninterim because the policies do not appear to be inconsistent with\nthe General Plan; she feels that Councilmember Matarrese's motion\ndeals with the issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of appropriating funds to\nstart the study with direction that: 1) the results come back\nthrough the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board for a\nGeneral Plan Amendment to the Council, 2) Policy No. 1 through 6\nare applied as guidelines in the interim, with Policy No. 7 to be\nrewritten; and 3) the guidance would be used unless there was an\nexplicit conflict stated in the General Plan requirement.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other policies were reviewed\nand should be used as part of the test.\nThe Transportation Commission Chair responded the Transportation\nMaster Plan is a five-page document i stated the Transportation\nElement would be an entire revamp.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether everyone is using EMM2.\nThe City Engineer responded everyone used EMM2 before; stated\nVoyager Cube is the new model and would be used by everyone.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether everyone means everyone in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 27, "text": "Alameda County subject to the CMA or just everyone generally.\nThe City Engineer responded at least Alameda County because CMA\nrequires that Voyager Cube be used for a General Plan update for\nCMA's link analysis; stated other traffic models can be used for\nthe operational analysis.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired why the link analysis is important.\nThe City Engineer responded the link analysis shows if there is\nsufficient capacity on roadway systems a deficiency occurs if\nthere is not sufficient capacity; CMA would require that the\nsituation be mitigated, which costs money.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the EMM2 has a link analysis.\nThe City Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated the CMA did\nnot like the software.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he interpreted\nthat the autopilot is not an issue for Policy No. 7 and would go\nthrough the process of being evaluated.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many EIRs are coming forward; he hopes\nthat overall developments are reviewed when looking at the\nTransportation Master Plan, not just segments that are coming\nforward; the piece meal affect does nothing but get one segment\nthrough.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated an hour has been spent discussing\nthe issue; Council would be remise in not thanking the\nTransportation Commission and Public Works staff for all the\nanalysis. the issue is difficult; countless hours have been spent\non the issue; he does not want anyone to misconstrue that the issue\nis easy and Council is just trying to forward on with the matter ;\nthe issue is a moving target and changes with people's habits, let\nalone development. he is thankful for the volunteers and engineers\nwho know what they are doing.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-523) Rob Schmidt, Alameda, requested an explanation on how the\ncable system will grow to be financially viable soon.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 28, "text": "Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Schmidt discuss the matter with\nstaff.\n(06-524) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, inquired why the Maitland Avenue\nand Harbor Bay Parkway corner parcel was moved; further inquired\nwhy the parcel was sold below market value and did not remain open\ngreen space.\nMayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Lipow submit the questions to\nstaff.\nThe City Manager stated a staff report would be provided to Ms.\nLipow also.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-525) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated money was allocated for a\nfeasibility study and fire station acquisition during the last\nbudget processi inquired whether the study been initiated.\nThe City Manager stated said information would be provided to\nCouncil.\n(06-526) Councilmember Daysog requested an update on the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan survey.\n(06-527) Councilmember deHaan requested that the financial\nstrategic planning tool be scheduled for discussion.\nADJOURNMENT\n( 06 - 528 ) Mayor Johnson announced that the November 7, 2006 Regular\nCity Council Meeting would be adjourned to Tuesday, November 14,\n2006 due to the November 7, 2006 General Municipal Election. There\nbeing no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Regular\nMeeting 11:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 29, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 17, 2006- -6:40 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 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(06-509) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, Executive Management Group,\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and\nConfidential Employees Association, and Police Association Non-\nSworn.\n(06-510) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Collins V. City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\nan update and gave direction to its Labor Negotiators; regarding\nExisting Litigation, Council received a litigation status update\nfrom Legal Counsel and no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 30, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -OCTOBER 17, 2006- -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese,\nand\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[\nItems so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n(*06-062 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners Meeting and Special Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting held on October 3, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-063 CIC) Resolution No. 06-148, \"Approving the Report to the\nCity Council on the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community\nImprovement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject, Authorizing Transmittal of Said Report to the City Council\nof the City of Alameda, and Consenting to Holding a Joint Public\nHearing with the City Council. Adopted; and\n(*06-511 CC) Resolution No. 14028, \"Receiving the Report to City\nCouncil Prepared for the Proposed Sixth Amendment to the Community\nImprovement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject and Consenting to Holding a Joint Public Hearing with the\nCommunity Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda. Adopted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-512CC/06-064 CIC) Public Hearing to consider certification of a\nsupplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR) approval of a\nGeneral Plan Amendment, Master Plan Amendment, a Development\nAgreement Amendment, two new Development Agreements, a Disposition\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-10-17", "page": 31, "text": "and Development Agreement Amendment and a new 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 a Health Club and up to 300 residential\nunits in the Catellus Mixed Use Development. Continued to November\n21, 2006.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker, Acting City Clerk\nActing\nSecretary,\nCommunity\nImprovement Commission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nOctober 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf"}