{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-021) - Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for\nhis twenty-six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by\nconsensus.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide\nCommunity Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07-030] was removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the\nDecember 5, 2006 minutes. ]\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire\nDepartment for the review and recommendation on the sale of\nemergency generators [paragraph no. *07-028].\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *07-022) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 2, "text": "Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City\nCouncil Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006\nminutes. ]\n(*07-023) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25.\n(*07-024) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment\nPolicy. Accepted.\n(*07-025) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for\nthe Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P. W.\n03-06-08. Accepted.\n(*07-026) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights at Various\nLocations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07-04-07, Federal ID:\nSTPLH-5014 (025) . Accepted.\n(*07-027) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer\nEnterprise Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000,\nincluding contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation\nfor the Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No.\nP.W. 10-06-21. Accepted.\n( *07-028) - Resolution No. 14057, \"Authorizing and Approving Sale of\nEmergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins\nWest, Inc. for $832,000. Adopted.\n( *07-029) Resolution No. 14058, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Tiburon, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City\nCharter for a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of\n$66,545.00.\" Adopted.\n(07-030) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, \"Joining\nthe Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the\nCalifornia Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept\nApplications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment\nProceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City\nof Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions. Adopted.\nThe Business Development Division Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to\nsmall-scale - development.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 3, "text": "The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could\nparticipate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is\nneeded.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds\nbefore.\nThe Business Development Division Manager responded the City has\nnever carried bonds for private development.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high\nparticipation level.\nThe Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is\nnew; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because\nthe Program provides an economic tool for future development.\nMayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would\nbenefit the community.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*07-031) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map\nTract 7846 (TM06-0006) for the purpose of establishing eight\nresidential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista\nAvenue within the R-4-PD Neighborhood Residential Planned\nDevelopment Zoning District. and\n(*07-031A) Resolution No. 14060, \"Approving Tentative Map Tract\n7846, TM06-0006, for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential\nLots within Four Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue. \"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-032) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington\nHomes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05-002), Rezoning\n(R05-004), Master Plan (MP05-001), Tentative Map (TM05-002), and\nadoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS05-0003) for\ndevelopment of forty new, detached single-family residences, and\nrelated utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an\nappeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and\nDesign Review permits (PD05-02) The project site is located at the\nnorthwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051-2099\nGrand Street;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 4, "text": "(07-032A) Resolution No. 14061, \"Adopting the Mitigated Negative\nDeclaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the\nGrand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of\nGrand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006-04-2145).\n\"\nAdopted;\n(07-032B) Resolution No. 14062, \"Approving General Plan Amendment\n(GPA-05-02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land\nUse Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to\nSpecified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and\nAssociated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified\nMixed Use Designation. Adopted;\n(07-032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning\nProperty Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street\nfrom M-2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed\nUse Planned Development District (MX) . Introduced:\n(07-032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05-01\nfor a Mixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,\nRecreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,\nLocated Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres\nof Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the\nOakland Estuary. Introduced\n(07-032E) Resolution No. 14063, \"Approving Tentative Map, TM05-\n0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and\nthe Oakland Estuary. Adopted; and\n(07-032F) Resolution No. 14064, \"Upholding Planning Board Approval\nof Planned Development PD05-02 and Design Review DR05-0126 for\nGrand Marina Village. Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt\npath.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the\nasphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist\nbetween the asphalt and other materials.\nMayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the\nmaintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand\nMarina.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance levels would be\nrequired; stated the Planning Board might have thought that asphalt\nwould not last as long as concrete.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 5, "text": "The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on\nthe Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the\nlandscaping and improvements.\nMayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to\nPeter Wang.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require\nMr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded he was not sure.\nMayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would\nprefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure\nproper maintenance.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay\nConservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad\ntrail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal\nServices District.\nThe Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the\nRecreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal\nServices District.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to\nreplicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.\nThe Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the\nGrand Marina lease requirement stated the Leasee would be required\nto maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every\nlease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that\nhe did not know.\nThe Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to\nmaintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could\nmake maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendation\nin the Grand Marina lease.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to\nerode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 6, "text": "The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan\ncondition that would require that the Grand Marina residential\nproject be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular\nparks; the condition could be expanded to include that the\nHomeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of\nthe parks.\nMayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a\nsafety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for\nmaintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired\nwhether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant.\nThe Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City\nand Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan\nentitlements.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability\nto pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nThe Supervising Planner continued with the presentation.\nThe Architect provided a video presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents: (In favor of project appeal) : David Day, Applicant; Dan\nLachman, Alameda Development Corporation.\nOpponent (Not in favor of project appeal) : Richard W. Rutter,\nAlameda.\nNeutral Christopher Buckley, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nFollowing the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the\nBayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not\nconsidered for the proposed project.\nThe Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build\nbecause of insurance; stated the proposed project has great\narchitectural quality; height diversity is good.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the\nBayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the\nproposed sidewalks would be wide enough.\nThe Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five-foot\nminimum width.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a\nfive-foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded\nsome Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for\nthe Bayport homes.\nMr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of\nincome; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 110% of\narea medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based\non 100% of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based\non 90% of area medium income.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association\nwould cover all maintenance, including the path.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop-\nupsi she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she\nprefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not\nlike slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers\nbetween two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition\nfor the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that\nwould require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;\nstated that he does not see the need for the east/west paseo that\ncuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every\nhouse could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and\naffordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than\nprevious developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the\nthird floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the\nMarina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo\ncondition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and\nmatches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of\nHibbard Street.\nCouncilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;\nstated she wants to ensure that there is consistent width; the path\nnarrows at certain points; she is concerned with pedestrian safety.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 430 square-foot third story has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 8, "text": "any functionality beyond architectural diversity.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two\nadditional rooms.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third\nstory into the roofline.\nThe Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant\non roof design.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the\nthird-story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is\ndirected to do.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.\nBuckley's examples.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in\nthe condition.\nMayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the\nchanges explicit; stated the design changes are significant\ninquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning\nBoard for review.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the\nApplicant stated residential guidelines do not address new three-\nstory buildings, only additions.\nMayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.\nThe Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where\nthe third floors go from side to side; one side has a three-story\nwall and the other side has a two-story wall in the current design;\nthe third-floor pop-up would be closer to the street.\nMayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.\nThe Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the\nMurano project design.\nThe Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go\nback to the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 9, "text": "used at Bridgeside; staff needs to review material consistency;\ninquired whether common areas are part of 2,000 square-foot lots,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to\nMeasure A.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with\nMeasure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every\nparcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some\nform of public access easement; the overall project is well within\nMeasure A density requirements.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to\nmaximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot\nconfigurations but is not something he would highly recommend.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity\nto try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely\nredesigned after the Planning Board study sessions.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for\nHibbard Street instead of full trees.\nThe Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed;\nstated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to\neventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the\nMarina Cove development.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the\nstreet.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down\nHibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or\nnot to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have\naddressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer\nnot to have palm trees.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review\nhow the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should\nensure the design is detailed, not bland.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 10, "text": "The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition\nto include the Grand Street elevations.\nMayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided\non Grand Street.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would\nprovide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed\nbecause of utilities.\nMr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third\nstory as close to the Murano project as possible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction\nbetween the market rate and affordable home designs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty\nnew Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) customers; inquired whether an\nAP&T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the\nconditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and\nintroduced ordinances with the following exceptions : 1)\nthe\nPlanning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the\nthird floor pop-ups to look like the examples of the Murano project\nin Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and\nChristopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate\nslider windows, and 4) AP&T be installed and marketed similar to\nthe Alameda Landing project.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's\ndecision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101\nShoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the\neight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded\napproximately ten to twenty units.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned.\nThe Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago;\nstated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents ( In favor of appeal) : Robert Matz, The Directly Affected\nHomeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and\nCharles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz)\n.\nOpponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Karen Stern, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the\neight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two-story.\nMr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on\nthe second story the bedrooms are downstairs.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees;\nsome Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners;\ninquired whether the replanted trees are proper.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has\nbeen working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter\nto the homeowners.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for\nthree different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the\npreferred tree.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness;\ninquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program\nallows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available;\nstated recently Council restored the funding; catch-up needs to be\ndone; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all\nresidents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have\nbeen pruned severely.\nThe Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is\nvery hardy and comes back rapidly.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning\nbecause trees are important to the City.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to\npolice tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are\nunderway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted\nby how trees are infilled.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and\nvisit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees\ninquired whether the trees could be moved.\nThe Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the\ntrees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very\nexpensive.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the\nsame issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced;\nshe does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees\nperiodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing\ntrees cyclically.\nThe Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan\nreference is not the section that addresses when trees should be\nremoved; the section addresses how trees are selected.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has\nbeen suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees;\nthe Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of\ngreater importance; view restoration can be accomplished now is\nthe time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees\nare planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive\nand help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree\ninfilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure\nwhether views would improve if the trees are replaced.\nMayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been\nreplaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting\nareas\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 13, "text": "The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be\ndone at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree\nMaster plan has restrictions regarding planting locations.\nMayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as\npossible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have\nexisting trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a\nprecedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred\nwith Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the\nMaster Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning\nevery year at the expense of the Homeowners Association.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first\nand fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at\nthe homeowner's expense.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the five-year pruning policy would\nbe re-instituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees\ndown to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City\nfunds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners\nwants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would\nbe born by the homeowners.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the\ntrees to bring the trees back into proportion.\nMayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree\nunless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the\nnormal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs\nupdating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing\navenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and\ninvolving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the\nintervening years.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works\nDirector's decision with direction for staff to work with a\ncertified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and\nfullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the\nMaster Tree Plan.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area for a long time\nher front tree grew to two and a half inches in diameter in thirty\nyears; the City needs to be more conscious in maintaining and\npruning trees.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with additional\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 14, "text": "direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate\nProtection Campaign Task Force.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Trail\nand Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered trees\nare in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed for\nShoreline Drive.\nMayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Bay Trail\narea on Harbor Bay; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review\nand update would occur before or after the proposed infill.\nThe Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be\nreviewed as part of tree placement.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be\nimposed if a homeowner removes a tree.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-034) ) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big\n-\nBox Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves.\nThe Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : David Howard,\nAlameda: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve\nfunds for infrastructure improvements he has a hard time spending\nreserve money on a study inquired whether the study could be\nfunded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not\nsupport taking the money from the General Fund Reserves.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business\nDevelopment Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been\nencumbered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from\nfunds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business\nDevelopment Manager responded in the negative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 15, "text": "The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the\nprocess of re-evaluating the budget opportunities do not exist to\nfund the study in the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda\nLanding or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are\nrelevant to the big box study.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the\nPlanning Department impact fees.\nThe City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money\nwas budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from\nanother source.\nThe Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to\nbe reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for\nAlameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be\nappropriate, but not one hundred percent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to\nsupport the projects.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City\nhas full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff\nsalaries are paid by the developer ; the developer funded a retail\nimpact analysis as part of the entitlement process for\napproximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix\nrecommendations\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required\nfor proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different\nfrom a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some\ngoals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would\naddress whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible\nwith existing retail.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other\nimpacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there\nshould be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the\nquestion; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a\nstudy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be\nreviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne\nCenter ; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is\nunknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify\nalternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time.\nCouncilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not\nbe used for the study stated the study should not duplicate\nprevious studies; all studies should be pulled together for a\ncomplete picture.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has a City-wide Retail Strategic\nPlan.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission\nwas requested to update said plan.\nMayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would\ncome out of the study.\nCouncilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide\nany new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study\nif it is needed.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004\nCitywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community\nImpact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers,\nhealth benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard\nfor a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds\nfor the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese'\nmotion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to\nconvene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate\nconclusions and recommendations that may include an additional\nstudy if needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements\nneed to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be\ninvolved in discussions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-035) Ordinance No. 2960, \"Approving Development Agreement DA-\n06-0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition\nCorporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development\nCorporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet\nof Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000\nSquare Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space\nand 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space. \" Finally\npassed.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief\npresentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and\nis easily understood he appreciates the time and thought that\nstaff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to\nfunding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been\ndetermined.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nsuccess criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the\nTDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and\nPlanning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled\nto begin discussions on January 31.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with\nentitlement changes most mitigations are not just for people in\nAlameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address\nthe issue.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nminimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the\nnew, mixed-use project.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be\nresolved before developments are in place.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\ndeveloper has stated that the minimum Phase One components would\ncost more than what would be collected stated Condition 11 lays\nout the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the\nproject was approved on December 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard any discussion\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 18, "text": "regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda\nPoint.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese':\ncommending staff.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-036) - David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and\nsubmitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities conference and orientation for new\nCouncilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended. the\nsessions provided a good overview of best practices in City\ngovernance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and\nland use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be\nfavorable for local governments ; AB 2511 compliance is an issue;\nencouraged Council to participate in the July conference.\nMayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend\nthe July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try\nto schedule Councilmembers to attend.\nThe City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25\nthrough 28.\n(07-038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the\nLeague of California Cities East Bay Division representative.\nContinued to February 6, 2007.\nVice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve\nalso.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the\nEnvironmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging\nregulations such as global warming.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the\nAirport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her\nknow their areas of interest before the next Council meeting.\n(07 -039 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and\nTelcom (AP&T) consultant report was published in the newspaper\nrequested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and\nrecommendations after the public workshops.\nThe City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the\npublic is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for\nThursday and Saturday a voice over Internet protocol is one of the\nconsultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the\nfirst quarter.\n(07-040) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that\nAlameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have\nthe matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission.\n(07-041) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but\nis only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP&T workshop\nmeetings be available to the public through webcasting.\n(07-042) - Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session\ninformation be released on Alameda Point negotiations.\n(07-043) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a\nmechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the\nboots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at\nAlameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center.\nMayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to\nreview the issue in the past suggested that a phone number be\nplaced on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a\ncertain number of hours.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 20, "text": "The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - - -7:29 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(07-001) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community Improvement\nCommission (CIC) Meeting held on December 5, 2006. Approved.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Commissioner Tam -\n1.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(07-002) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project Construction update.\nThe Development Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired when the parking garage foundation\nwould be poured.\nThe Development Manager responded the foundation would be poured in\nphases, starting with the back corner of Long's and working\nforward; stated the first pour would be in three to four weeks.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated some value engineered items overlap\nwith the list presented in July; inquired whether the parking\ngarage exterior appearance would be altered by any of the value\nengineered items not presented in July.\nThe Development Manager responded all value engineered items were\non the July list with the exception of the stairs stated the top\nslab was eliminated and does not affect the fa\u00e7ade.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated he did not see the deletion of the\nprecast spandrel panels in the July report.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 22, "text": "The Development Manager stated said item was in the bid form as a\ndeduct alternative; the cast in place walls are $80,000 less.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the concrete appearance\nwould be the same, to which the Development Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether $150,000 of the reserves would be\nused, leaving approximately $300,000.\nThe Development Manager responded approximately $140,000 of the\nreserves would be used when small cost savings are taken into\nconsideration stated approximately $275,000 would remain.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether items could be added back in if more\ncontingency was not used, to which the Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex went through value\nengineering; inquired whether architectural items were taken away.\nThe Development Manager responded value engineering was considered\nwhen the bid was received from Overaa Construction because the\noriginal price was higher; stated very little value-engineered\nchanges are anticipated for the Cineplex.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the removed items have an\nimpact on the Cineplex.\nThe Development Manager responded the design changes are minor ;\nstated the Planning and Building Director would determine whether\nthe changes constitute substantial changes to design review.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Planning and Building\nDirector would review the changes, to which the Development Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the project is on schedule\nsince Cineplex funding is not in place.\nThe Development Manager responded milestones and schedules are\nnoted on Attachment 2; stated the theater and garage are on\nschedule; the developer hopes to be finished with the Cineplex by\nthe end of the year; the final Cineplex schedule would be presented\nto Council once the General Contractor is on board and construction\nstarts.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 23, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the historic theater completion\ntimeline is March or April 2008.\nThe Development Manager responded in the negative; stated November\n2007 is the anticipated completion date.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the layout area would be a\nproblem once the Cineplex construction starts.\nThe Development Manager responded staff is meeting with Overaa and\nthe developer to coordinate a number of issues; stated the site is\ntight ; Overaa is prepared to deal with the issues the trailers\nshould be removed from the Cineplex site by the end of the month;\nOveraa could utilize some unfinished space in the historic theater\nmezzanine area; staff would continue to coordinate with Overaa on\nan on-going basis.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested that any Cineplex design changes\ncome back to Council; stated discretionary decisions should not be\nmade.\nCommissioner deHaan stated priorities have not been set.\nChair Johnson called the public speakers.\nRichard W. Rutter, Alameda, outlined concerns with the value-\nengineered changes itemized in Attachment 3.\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda, outlined some parking garage \"at\nrisk\" details.\nChair Johnson inquired when decisions need to be made on the items\noutlined by Mr. Buckley.\nThe Development Manager responded the canopy and blade sign prices\nare secured for six months in addition to some items that may be\nadded later.\nChair Johnson inquired whether fund raising opportunities are\npossible.\nThe Development Manager responded absolutely; stated private\nfunding could be used for the mural underneath the mezzanine wall.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether prices are secured for six\nmonths from now.\nThe Development Manager responded prices are secured for six months\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 24, "text": "from the day the price was received from the Contractor, which was\nlast week.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the steel galvanizing issue needs to be\naddressed now.\nThe Development Manager stated the City's Architect does not feel\nthat the project's integrity would be compromised by deleting the\nsteel galvanizing.\nChair Johnson stated the Commission would be able to make decisions\nwhen items are brought back.\nCommissioner deHaan requested that the Development Manager provide\na list of items [value engineering add back ] to be considered along\nwith a timeline.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested: 1) an Off Agenda Report on the\nvalue engineered items, 2) any Cineplex and parking garage exterior\ndesign changes be approved by the Commission, and 3) a timeline\noutlining when decisions need to be made for adding back value\nengineered items; stated a decision would need to be made prior to\npouring concrete on whether to use galvanized steel versus painted\nsteel.\nThe Development Manager clarified that all the column bases have\ngranite tile.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-01-16", "page": 25, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 16, 2007 - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-018) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9; Number of cases One.\n(07-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9 ; Name of case: Attari V. City of Alameda.\n(07-020) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-\nSworn. Not discussed.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from the City Attorney and no action\nwas taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a\nbriefing and gave direction to the City Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 16, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf"}