{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007- - -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:46\np.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\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(07-219) ) Proclamation declaring May 17, 2007 as Bike-to-Work Day\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dan Wood, Bike\nAlameda.\n(07-220) Proclamation declaring May 13 through 19, 2007 as\nNational Police Memorial Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Chief of\nPolice.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar ;\nrequested a 10-year sales tax profile [regarding the recommendation\nto accept quarterly sales tax, paragraph no. *07-224].\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted that he would abstain from voting on\nthe May 1, 2007 minutes [paragraph no. *07-221].\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*07-221) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission meeting held on April 17, 2007, the Special\nand Regular City Council Meetings held on May 1, 2007, and the\nSpecial Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority, and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on May\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 2, "text": "8, 2007. . Approved.\n[Note: Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the May 1,\n2007 minutes. ]\n(\n*07-222) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,285,161.40.\n( *07-223) Recommendation to set hearing date for June 5, 2007 for\nestablishment of Proposition 4 Limit for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.\nAccepted.\n(*07-224) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for\nperiod ending March 31, 2007. Accepted.\n(*07-225) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$240,000, including contingencies, to Shaaf & Wheeler Consulting\nEngineers for Storm Drainage Study, No. P.W. 03-07-08. Accepted.\n(*07-226) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids for Roof Structure for Maintenance Service Center Transfer\nPad and Dumpsters, No. P. W. 04-07-14. Accepted.\n(*07-227) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for pruning of City trees within the City\nof Alameda for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2008, No. P. W. 04-\n07-13. Accepted.\n(*07-228) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon\nConstruction, Inc., for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of Portland\nCement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway, and minor street\npatching, No. P.W. 03-06-06. Accepted.\n( *07-229) Resolution No. 14086, \"Preliminarily Approving Annual\nReport Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of\nAssessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007\n- Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. Adopted;\n(*07-229A) -\nResolution No. 14087, \"Preliminarily Approving\nAnnual Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of\nAssessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007\n- Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zones 2 and\n3. \" Adopted.\n( *07-230) Resolution No. 14088, \"Preliminarily Approving Annual\nReport Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of\nAssessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing July 3, 2007\n- Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove). .\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 3, "text": "(*07-231) Resolution No. 14089, \"Approving a Second Amendment to\nthe Agreement for Additional Funding from the State of California\nCoastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina Eradication and\nMitigation Measures and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into\nAll Associated Agreements. Adopted.\n(*07-232) Resolution No. 14090, \"Accepting $138,000 in Fiscal Year\n2007-2008 - Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Funds for the\nSignal Coordination and Interconnect for Eighth Street, Park\nStreet, and Otis Drive Projects. Adopted.\n(*07-233) Resolution No. 14091, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Moss Brothers Dodge, Riverside, California Pursuant to Section\n3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for One Dodge Charger in an Amount\nNot to Exceed $23,470. Adopted.\n(*07-234) Resolution No. 14092, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nComplete and Execute a Cooperative Agreement Between the City of\nAlameda and the State of California Department of Transportation\nfor the Stargell (Formerly Tinker) Avenue Extension Project (CIP\nNo. 04-105/CalTrans Project No. EA448200) Adopted.\n(*07-235) Resolution No. 14093, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy an\nAnnual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the\nCity of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2007-2008 and Set a Public Hearing\nfor June 5, 2007 \"\nAdopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-236)\n-\n)\nPublic Hearing to consider a Call for Review/Appeal of\nthe Planning Board's appointment of an Ad Hoc Committee to work\nwith the Planning and Building Director on a Housing\nElement/Measure A Workshop.\nThe Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of Appeal) : former Councilmember Barbara Kerr,\nAppellant; Pat Bail, Appellant Dr. Alice Challen, Appellant; Diane\nColer-Dark, Appellant; Jim Sweeney, Appellant; former Councilmember\n\"Lil\" Arnerich, Appellant; \"Lil\" Arnerich for Norma Arnerich,\nAlameda; former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Appellant Robert\nPardee, Alameda Dorothy A. Freeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard,\nAlameda; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; David\nHoward, Action Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Ashley Jones,\nAlameda; Len Grzanka, Alameda; Nita Rosen, Alameda; Noel Folsom,\nAlameda; Robert Rodd, Alameda; Robert Todd, Alameda: and Mercedes\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 4, "text": "Milana, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning\nBoard Member ; Ann Cook, Planning Board Member ; Kate Quick, League\nof Women Voters of Alameda (submitted handout) i Michael Schmitz,\nAlameda. Lois Pryor, Alameda; Doug Linney, Alameda; Mark Irons,\nAlameda; Mi 'Chelle Fredrick, Alameda; Diane Lichtenstein, Housing\nOpportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Susan Decker, Alameda;\nWalter Schlueter, Alameda; Lauren Do, Alameda; Dan Wood, Alameda;\nHelen Sause, HOMES; Jon Spangler, Alameda Sam Sauce, Alameda; Carl\nHalpern, Alameda; Liz Rogers, Alameda; Michael Kruger, Alameda;\nJohn Knox White, Alameda; Laura Thomas, Alameda; and Eve Bach, Arc\nEcology.\nNeutral : Pamela Kurtz, Alameda; and Bill Smith, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson left the meeting at 8:18 p.m. and returned at 9:21\np.m.\nFollowing the Appellants' comments, Councilmember deHaan stated the\nCity is going through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's\n(MTC) Station Area Plan; the initial meeting was held; inquired\nwhether the Planning Board submitted information and inquiries for\ndiscussion at said meeting.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that the Planning\nBoard talked about wanting to see design and land usage; inquired\nwhat the Station Area Plan is to do.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the Station Area Plan\nlooks at land development patterns for Alameda Point; stated as\npart of the grant MTC awarded the City, the City is required to\nlook at a land use development pattern that would be denser around\na multi-modal transit station, which would be a non-Measure A\nalternative; the land development alternative in the Alameda Point\nPreliminary Development Concept (PDC) will be compared to something\nwith a different form to see how transit would or would not be\nsupported.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why would said avenue not be used as\nthe platform for discussion.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded said avenue is part of\nthe discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated the Planning and Building Director's\nposition at the [Planning Board] meeting was that the decision is\npolicy and should be considered at the Council level, which is\ncontrary to the staff report.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded a bigger discussion of\nMeasure A, not in context of the Housing Element update or MTC\ngrant funded project, is a policy discussion in her opinion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council is going through stages\nright now; the Alameda Point Master Developer was just selected;\nthe Master Developer will return with various ideas and direction\nthe MTC Station Area Plan was to set up the dialogue on\ntransportation; there was a very small sub-element on Measure A,\nwhich became a prime element at the first meeting; the Housing\nElement has been under discussion for ages and is an on-going\nlegitimate discussion; the Chinatown Agreement and lawsuits facing\nthe City are important and put certain limitations on the amount of\nhousing that can be built; the Collins property plans rejected by\nthe Planning Board and Council is in a lawsuit: these are the\nthings in which the Council needs to be involved; there is going to\nbe a different disposition of how Coast Guard housing will be\nhandled said matters are the concerns that require better\nunderstanding of how to go forward; the Transportation Master Plan\n(TMP) will come forward; all said matters intertwine together the\nCouncil took a position when the League of Women Voters requested\nthe matter [Measure A amendment ] be put on the ballot; density,\ntraffic and number of houses are important issues; in 2000, the\nSierra Club and ARC Ecology did a survey of around 300 homes to ask\nif there was support to change Measure A; the response was not to\nchange Measure A; the other question was whether there would be\nsupport to change Measure A for Alameda Point the study indicated\nthe matter would not pass if it were not brought through the\nCouncil: a year later the Chamber of Commerce surveyed its\nmembership regarding changing Measure A; the membership decided not\nto take any action because the resounding response was the\nmembership did not support changing Measure A; Measure A continues\nto get good dialogue; there is not good understanding of Measure A;\nthe dialogue has to be out there to ensure people understand why\nMeasure A was put in place; Alameda Landing entitlements increased\nhousing and added retail that he supports additional retail;\nhowever, saturation is being reached; the Tube congestion is\ngetting worse; full build out is not even close; reducing the\namount of housing at Alameda Point has been discussed; a rough\nstudy indicated that it would take 3,100 homes to make Alameda\nPoint economically viable; there will be further study 12-15% of\npeople in Alameda use public transit; the Alameda Point PDC states\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 6, "text": "that the largest percent achievable would be 20% [using public\ntransit] ; the matter is how traffic will flow and move in an\norderly fashion throughout Alameda, not Measure A; the Council\nneeds further discussion of how to look at Alameda as a whole\nrather than individual parts; discussion is important and healthy.\nFollowing the last public speaker, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\n* *\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 10:25 p.m. and reconvened the\nmeeting at 10:40 p.m.\nMayor Johnson stated that she appreciated everyone's civility.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested the City Attorney to answer the\nquestion about whether the Planning Board action was within the\nBoard's legal authority.\nThe City Attorney responded the Planning Board has no jurisdiction\nover amending or changing Measure A, which would be a Charter\namendment and requires a vote of the people; stated the Planning\nBoard also has no jurisdiction over advocating the changing of\nMeasure A; the Planning Board can look at and talk about Measure A\nas long as it does not take an advocacy position; establishing a\nsubcommittee for the sole purpose of looking at various ways a\npublic forum could be structured is not outside the authority of\nthe Planning Board; under the Brown Act, the subcommittee must\nreport back to the Planning Board at an open meeting with public\nparticipation; the action the Planning Board took was within the\nBoard's jurisdiction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board's\naction that was appealed was legal whether the Board cannot take\nan advocacy position; whether the subcommittee would not make any\ndecisions and would only make recommendations to the Planning\nBoard; and whether the Planning Board would not make any decision\nabout whether Measure A stays or goes because it is outside the\nBoard's purview.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative to all of\nCouncilmember Matarrese's inquiries.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether there are any constraints on the\ndirection the Council can give regarding the composition of the\nsubcommittee.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 7, "text": "The City Attorney responded there are no constraints on the City\nCouncil to condition the Planning Board's action; Council can\nuphold the appeal, deny the appeal or make a different\nrecommendation to the Planning Board and remand the decision for\nthe Planning Board to do in a different way.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council determines how individual\nelements move forward, which has an impact on the overall\ndevelopment of Alameda: the overall development of Alameda should\nbe reviewed; Measure A is a segment of it (development) ; Measure A\ncould be discarded if there were a limit on the number of overall\nhousing units and design were different ; there needs to be an\nunderstanding of what might be built out and how impacts will\naffect the City; the Council should look at how the overall growth\nof Alameda is going to be built out and understand all the segments\ntogether and the TMP's impacts decisions should start being made\nas a big picture; the Measure A portion is going to be and has been\ndiscussed, maybe not in the proper context, in the Station Area\nPlan; that he has not seen what the Station Area Plan next meeting\nwill look like, which is important to him; the first meeting\nstarted off on the wrong foot; another three meetings will be held,\nwhich is a good starting point; MTC's funding provided a great\nopportunity since the City could not afford the staff time and\neffort; that he would prefer looking at the overall picture and\nmaking a determination of how the City will handle this\n[development] as a whole; the other [ formation of a subcommittee]\nshould be put on the side and the appeal should be upheld because\nthe Planning Board has a heavy agenda for the next three or four\nmonths.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not disagree with Councilmember\ndeHaan's comments; questioned whether the normal process is to\nstart with the Planning Board and then have the matter come to\nCouncil; stated that she agrees there should be an overall\nstrategy, which has been done in different areas; there should be a\ncomprehensive review.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it [comprehensive review] has been done\nsomewhat in the Alameda Point PDC .\nMayor Johnson stated parts have been completed, such as\ntransportation and retail analysis.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Northern waterfront and the impact\nof South Shore have not been done; all of the elements have not\nbeen considered together as a whole; the West End has to be one of\nthe most important corridors and is already impacted now; Measure A\nmight not change that [West End corridor] at all and would not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 8, "text": "effect the numbers being discussed if the intent were not to have\nmore housing units; the transportation corridor has become so much\nmore important; there is a situation with Alameda Landing--only\n$400,000 was designated for remediation of transportation\ncorridors; Oakland is developing out which is inundating Alameda's\ncorridors; the Council would be remiss if the proper context is not\ntaken.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is stating that\nmore housing units should not be included if the Planning Board is\nreviewing, for example, planning at the Base.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded that he is just telling about the\nimpact of traffic itself; stated no more housing started to be\ndiscussed when the City lost the last developer ; reducing the\nnumber of homes started being discussed more; the developer has\nbeen told the City wants jobs out there [at Alameda Point] another\ndeveloper was just selected; there is time to review and\nunderstand; the new developer is a new set of fresh eyes and will\nbring a new dimension to it [Alameda Point development] ; there is\nno urgency at this point in time; adaptive reuse has been talked\nabout; individuals have stated adaptive reuse cannot be done under\nMeasure A, but it can; it [development ] may not be as good under\nMeasure A as it could be, but it can be done; Cardinal Point is an\nexcellent example; needs can be met under Measure A; Alameda\nLanding will include building housing above commercial space and is\nMeasure A compliant; Measure A is not the driving force; there is a\nbigger problem--the constraints and opportunities facing the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated several of Councilmember deHaan's\ncomments, such as the statement that the impacts are not known,\nsupport the Planning Board action; the City is facing the largest\ndevelopment, which is really reuse, in Alameda's history; the\ndevelopment is probably the most important in the Bay Area and\nevery single option is worth review; the ground rules are\nspecifically to establish the facts on the limitations and benefits\nof Measure A; it [the workshop] is to obtain public input the\ndeliverable is to provide a written account of the workshop that\nwill include facts that can be used in support of the Housing\nElement and to provide the City Council with information for making\npolicy decisions; doing it [the workshop) now is fortuitous because\nAlameda Point development is at least a year awayi Measure A has\nbeen discussed every two years on a regular basis in the context of\npolitical campaigns; taking the discussion outside the context of a\npolitical campaign and making it fact based is good; that in\naddition to the Housing Element, he would like to include the\ntransportation component, which is inextricably intertwined; the\nforum should be facilitated by someone outside the City who is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 9, "text": "independent; having the discussion is timely and must be done.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the formation of a committee to plan a public\nforum has raised the concern that there may be a group that is\nheaded in the direction of amending Measure A; Measure A permeates\nthrough the City's land use planning and affects the quality of\nlife as it pertains to dealing with traffic through the Tube,\nsaving open space, and public transit ridership; both sides agreed\nthat institutional knowledge could be conveyed through a public\nforum that is fair, honest, balanced, realistic and helps define\nthe future, particularly with the Alameda Point development; there\nis a concern that the committee may not be able to fulfill some of\nthe expectations of the fair, open, transparent debate; therefore,\nshe suggests that the committee be expanded to include three\nmembers from the seven Appellants.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the members of the public for\nparticipating in the discussion; stated people mentioned that\nMeasure A came to be when there was concern about a large\ndevelopment at one end of town and people were worried about what\nthe density and traffic would do to the rest of the town; now,\nthere will be another very large development at one end of town;\nthe City is facing a situation very similar to the situation that\nspawned Measure A and there is a lot of discussion about the pros\nand cons of Measure A; concerns raised at the Planning Board\nmeeting were legitimate; including Appellants on the committee is a\ngood idea; that she was going to suggest that the structure formed\nby the committee return to the Planning Board for full debate; the\ncommittee might come up with a structure that does not include any\nPlanning Board members; a method might be to choose members of the\npublic.\nMayor Johnson stated there is a perception that the City is\nadvocating ; having no members of the Planning Board might be good\nthe Council appoints other committees that do not involve members\nof boards, commissions or Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated good suggestions were made tonight,\nsuch as having Woody Minor present a history of Measure A; that she\ndoes not know enough about what the structure will be to decide\nwhether it [the forum] will be good or bad; on a personal basis,\nshe does not like to tell anyone that they cannot talk about\nsomething; open meetings are held in order to allow people to talk;\na fair, unbiased forum that would allow people to give viewpoints\nand be educated would be good for the City; that she likes the fact\nthat it [the forum] will be done in a non-election year and is not\nbeing done while there is a signed agreement with an Alameda Point\ndeveloper ; not having a signed developer should eliminate concerns\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 10, "text": "that the forum is developer driven; the development at Bay Farm\ngave rise to Measure A; the discussion on Alameda Point development\nmight give rise to a tightening of Measure A, which will not be\nknown until the discussion is held.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned that the leadership\nwhich the Planning Board would bring to the debate would be lost if\nthe committee is made up of members of the public; the Planning\nBoard is the Council's land use advisory body and has a significant\namount of expertise that should not be lost combining the Planning\nBoard members with people on the other side of the debate brings a\nricher framework for how the public forum would be shaped, as well\nas inviting Woody Minor to be a panelist at one of the workshops\nCouncilmember deHaan stated similar thoughts were raised at the\nPlanning Board meeting; adding other parties to the committee was\ndiscussed and was not pursued; starting with Woody Minor was\nbrought up a couple of meetings prior; understanding pros and cons\nthat have occurred during the last 34 years has to be done to make\nthe forum meaningful  the forum is not needed to address design and\nland usage issue, which are already being addressed at the MTC ;\nthere has to be much more to the dialogue.\nMayor Johnson recognized Planning Board Member Marilyn Ezzy\nAshcraft.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the three subcommittee members met after\nthe Planning Board appointed the subcommittee and prior to the\nAppeal/Call for Review; at said meeting, one of the first names\nthat came up as a good starting point was Woody Minor; that she\ntakes copious notes and no one expressed a desire to overturn\nMeasure A; the discussion was about what the Council would want as\na deliverable, probably at least three alternatives the\nsubcommittee also discussed wanting to hear from people in as many\ndifferent areas as possible and how to do as much as possible on a\nvery limited budget; urged Council to give the subcommittee 30 days\nto come up with something and return to the Planning Board or\nCouncil; the subcommittee is looking for a way to have a full, fair\ndiscussion.\nMayor Johnson recognized former Councilmember \"Lil\" Arnerich.\nMr. Arnerich inquired whether the Council has the right to select\nthe committee members; stated the rooster is guarding the hen\nhouse; people think the three Planning Board members selected for\nthe subcommittee are anti-Measure A; the subcommittee should be\nmade up of unbiased people who would look at the matter\nobjectively.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Arnerich would support the\nCouncil adding him, former Councilmember Barbara Kerr and Woody\nMinor to the committee.\nMr. Arnerich responded that he did not want to serve; stated Golf\nCommissioner Bob Wood would be good.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Woody Minor should give a presentation\n[at the forum] ; actual Appellants should be added to the committee.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellants could select three\ndesignees.\nMr. Arnerich responded many excellent people could serve; going to\npeople outside the Planning Board to carry out the Council's wishes\nis the most appropriate way to go.\nMayor Johnson stated there is a perception that the subcommittee\nmembers have a preference.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the three subcommittee members along\nwith three the Appellants, selected by the Appellants, could get\ntogether and come up with structure for going forward with the\nMeasure A discussion; inquired whether putting more people on the\nsubcommittee means that the meetings would have to be noticed\nstated the group would meet to set up a forum; the six people\nshould be able to meet and bring a recommendation back to the City\nCouncil or Planning Board at which time the public could comment on\nthe structure.\nThe City Attorney stated the Planning Board set up a subcommittee\ncomposed of less than a quorum of the Board; the Council is\nentertaining the establishment of an Ad Hoc Committee, which is\nslightly different meeting outside a noticed, public hearing would\nbe permissible since the officials involved are still less than a\nquorum of the legislative body because no action will be taken; the\ngroup would have to return to the Planning Board or City Council\nand report on its findings and recommendations the Planning Board\nor Council would make a decision on the context of the forum after\nthe public has an opportunity to provide input.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Council could give direction to\nnotice the meetings, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the public should be able to attend the\nmeetings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 12, "text": "The City Attorney stated the Brown Act does not constrain the\nCouncil from setting up a meeting that has more public\nparticipation than is legally required.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a Task Force set up to address Harbor\nIsland [apartment evictions] allowed members of the public to\nattend the meetings and listen to deliberations, but not provide\ninput.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said meetings were noticed, to which\nCouncilmember deHaan responded the meetings were announced at\nCouncil meetings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said idea is good; the Ad Hoc\nCommittee will work on the structure that would return to the\nPlanning Board for consideration; the Planning Board would make a\ndecision on the structure of the forum and there would be\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of denying the Appeal and\nupholding the Planning Board's decision to assign an Ad Hoc\nCommittee to work on a structure for a public forum on Measure A\nwith the following conditions that it includes in the context of\nthe housing element and transportation issues, that it is limited\nto establishing the facts on limitations and benefits of Measure A\nand prohibits advocacy, that it obtains public input and a written\nrecord of the workshop and its deliberations be provided, that its\nintent is to be used as a basis for the upcoming housing element as\nwell as other decisions related to future development in Alameda,\nand that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include three members\nof the Appellant group to be determined by the Appellants.\nMayor Johnson suggested the motion be kept simple since structuring\nthe forum itself is being discussed; stated the end result should\nnot be set.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the end result can be struck from\nthe motion, but knowing the goal is important to know the work\nproduct.\nMayor Johnson stated the goal is getting to the workshop itself.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Ad Hoc Committee would\nreport back to the Council or Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the Ad Hoc Committee would report\nto the Planning Board; the Planning Board would have public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 13, "text": "deliberation and make a decision; then, the forum would occur ;\nthere would be a work product ; there would be a record of what\nhappened [at the forum], including what people said and what was\ndiscussed: the discussion should be written down and memorialized.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember\nMatarrese; the Planning Board had a lengthy discussion several\nyears ago and the only record was that a meeting was held to\ndiscuss Measure A; that she would not want to take time and effort\nto establish a structure to have an impartial forum and not have a\nrecord of the forum; that she supports having full minutes of the\ndiscussion written down and memorialized.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the discussion would be\nlimited to Alameda Point only, to which Councilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Ad Hoc Committee should determine\nthe parameters.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact on\nany lawsuits, to which the City Attorney responded that she would\nprepare a confidential opinion for the Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated regardless of the Ad Hoc Committee's\nstructure or its decisions, Measure A is still the law in Alameda;\nunless citizens circulate a petition to have the matter placed on\nthe ballot and voted upon, Measure A remains the law.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion with the clarification from\nCouncilmember Gilmore.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested the motion be restated.\nCouncilmember Matarrese restated the motion to deny the appeal and\nuphold the decision of the Planning Board with the following\nconditions : that the context is both the Housing Element and\ntransportation; that the Ad Hoc Committee be expanded to include\nthree members of the Appellant group to be determined by the\nAppellants; workshop deliverables are establishing facts,\nlimitations, and benefits of Measure A, to obtain public input and\nto provide a written account of deliberations and outcomes of the\nworkshop.\nMayor Johnson inquired how people would be informed of the Ad Hoc\nCommittee's Meetings stated the motion should include direction\nthat the Ad Hoc Committees meeting schedule be made public.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated the meetings could be announced at\nCouncil or Planning Board meetings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion included\nCouncilmember Gilmore's comments that Vice Mayor Tam included when\nshe originally seconded the motion.\nVice Mayor Tam stated Councilmember Gilmore's clarification on the\nprocess in which the deliverables come back to the Council was\narticulated when Councilmember Matarrese restated the motion.\nMayor Johnson stated the comments were that there should be a\nwritten record.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the main point was that there be a\nwritten record of what was discussed, how it was discussed, and\nwhat conclusions, if anyi there needs to be a full record, not just\none line that a meeting was held.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Councilmember Gilmore alluded to\nMeasure A itself being the will of the people and would come back\nthrough said means via the will of the people.\nMayor Johnson stated the statement could be made for the record.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the statement could be made for the\nrecord; however, it [statement ] did not have anything to do with\nthe motion.\nMayor Johnson stated the statement should be made as part of the\nrecord: that the Council recognizes Measure A is part of the\nCharter and can only be changed by a vote of the people; further\nstated that she personally, and she has heard a majority of the\nmembers of the Council state, that they do not believe that the\nCouncil should put Measure A on the ballot ; the discussions are not\nleading towards a campaign; Measure A was originally a grassroots\neffort; if there is support to change Measure A, it should be\nthrough the same grassroots effort; the matter can be made very\nclear as part of the record.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated louncilmember Gilmore had stated the\nsame thing, which he was reiterating.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she meant her statement, but does\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 15, "text": "not think it needs to be stated as part [of the motion].\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he thinks it does.\nMayor Johnson stated people need to understand that Measure A can\nonly be changed by the voters.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested clarification [to the motion] of\nwhether the three additional Ad Hoc Committee members selected by\nthe Appellants would be Appellants or designees; stated that she\nwould prefer the actual signed Appellants, not designees.\nMayor Johnson concurred that three of the Appellants should be\nselected.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted that there was also a clarification [to\nthe motion] that the meetings would be posted in some way.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether everyone was clear.\nHearing no objection, on the call for the question, the motion\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-237) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated dead bees are inside\nthe Fort Knox building on Webster Street.\nMayor Johnson stated City Hall had a bee problem; the beehive was\nremoved and transplanted: requested that information be provided to\nFort Knox.\n(07-238) David Howard, Alameda, stated that he hopes Council stays\nfocused on job creation and job preservation when working with Sun\nCal [Alameda Point developer] questioned whether the three person\nsub-committee meeting referenced by Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft [under the\nPublic Hearing, paragraph no. 07-236] constituted a Brown Act\nviolation.\n(07-239)\nJon Spangler, Alameda, urged everyone to ride bikes on\nBike to Work Day\n(07-240) Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated a newspaper article noted\nthat the new Work/Live building would draw 50,000 cars; the\nWork/Live ordinance prohibits any impacts on the surrounding area;\nparking is not available on Blanding Avenue except the shopping\ncenter area; urged Council to direct the City Manager to\ninvestigate whether a use permit or variance was issued; stated the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 16, "text": "Metropolitan Transportation Commission grant is a big joke if it\ndoes not consider electric carts; new developments need to address\npaths for electric carts; the idea is not revolutionary and works\nfurther stated special paths can be developed for electric carts\nstorage can be established at transit hubs, such as the ferry and\nbus terminals.\nMayor Johnson noted Palm Desert legalized driving golf carts on the\nstreets.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-241) - Mayor Johnson requested that electric car charging\nsystems in new homes be considered as part of the green building\nordinance.\n(07-242) Mayor Johnson stated the Harbor Island Task Force\nrecommended a condominium conversion ordinance; requested an update\non the status.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the issue was raised as a home\nownership effort; the City was to come up with a model.\nMayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to move forward on the\nmatter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council was concerned about the\neconomic feasibility for an owner to convert.\n(07-243 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested that the Tube lighting\nsystem be placed on the Public Works project list stated he\nappreciates the cleanup of the entrance on the Oakland side.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the lighting has been removed on one\nside.\nThe City Manager stated the lighting removal is part of the\nimprovement; the Public Works Director would receive an update from\nCalTrans.\n(07-244) Councilmember deHaan stated control boxes are covered\nwith graffiti throughout Alameda: he hopes that the Police\nDepartment makes an effort to find the responsible individual; the\nCentral Avenue telephone company switching station and the Atlantic\nAvenue building near the old railroad housing are disasters; he\nwould be happy to provide pictures.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 17, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007- - -6:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-217) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Properties :\nAlameda Gateway, Alameda Marina, Ballena Marina, Encinal\nIndustries, and Encinal Marina; Negotiating parties City and J.\nBeery, Pacific Shops, Almar Property, P. Wang and Encinal Marina;\nUnder negotiation: Price and terms.\n( 07-218 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations\n:\nAll City Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council regarding Property,\nCouncil received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiators\nregarding the status of existing leases and gave direction on\nnegotiating parameters for new lease terms; regarding Labor,\nCouncil received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators and gave\ndirection on negotiating parameters.\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\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2007 - - -7:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:47 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(07-017) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting\nheld on April 17, 2007, and Special Joint City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority, and CIC meeting held on May 8,\n2007.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(07-018) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking\nStructure Construction Project;\n(07-018A) Recommendation to authorize staff to approve a Change\nOrder for up to $100,000 for preserving and restoring the\nauditorium bas relief niches and ceiling; and\n(07-018B) Recommendation to release $250,000 in project budgeted\nfunds to Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P. for Cineplex site\nwork.\n*\n*\n(07-019) Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past 12:00 midnight.\nCommissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n*\nCommissioner Matarrese requested that photographs of the Historic\nTheater restoration be posted to the City's website.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 20, "text": "Chair Johnson inquired whether two action items are being\nconsidered tonight, to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the affirmative\nChair Johnson stated there would never be another opportunity to\nwork on the entire ceiling; the work needs to be done; inquired\nwhether 34% of the contingency budget would be used.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nChair Johnson stated staff should come back to the Commission once\nthere is a better idea of the amount of the contingency budget that\nwill be used; money should not be left in the contingency budget ;\nmoney should be spent on additional theater restoration; people\nthought only the lobby would be restored and will be happy to see\nthe extent of the restoration; further stated the historic theater\nis being restored as a one screen theater the screen will be one\nof the largest in the area.\nThe Development Services Director stated the entire amount\nrequested [$100,000 might not be used on the ceiling.\nChair Johnson stated the maximum amount of work that can be done\nshould be done while the scaffolding is up.\nThe Development Services Director stated completing the entire\nceiling should be around $80,000; keeping some of the historic\npaint features would cost lessi further stated money should be left\nin the contingency budget at the end of the project for tenant\nimprovements in the retail spaces.\nChair Johnson inquired whether holes in the ceiling would be\nrepaired, to which the Development Services Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he was impressed with the art\ntreatments that were uncovered; he would like to see the latest\ntechnology used on light fixtures; there will never be another\nopportunity to get back up in the ceiling a lot of electricity\nwould be used for individual light sockets; the matter should be\nreviewed with Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) .\nThe Development Services Director stated the matter could be\nreviewed very quickly; new technologies will adapt to old sockets;\nthere is also the challenge between using the historic lighting\nversus modernizing it [lighting].\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 21, "text": "Commissioner deHaan stated as people walk into the theater, they\nwill look directly at the concession area; it lobby ] is a\nbeautiful area and people should not look at the concession area;\nhe would like to see a dummy wall in front of that [concession\narea], which would allow people to walk around into the concession\narea; that he discussed the matter with the Project Manager; a\nsimple wall would break it up so your eyes would have to go into\nthe rest of the area [ lobby\nThe Development Services Director stated staff could explore the\nmatter and bring it back to the Commission; that she would have to\ncheck with the historic architects because the lobby is being\ncompleted as a restoration.\nCommissioner deHaan stated what he is talking about is extremely\nsimple.\nChair Johnson questioned whether the lobby should be broken up.\nCommissioner deHaan stated there is a penetration going to the\nconcession area now that was never there; he is requesting a dummy\nwall that people can walk around to get to the concession area; the\npopcorn machine would not be seen and would be buffered; the\ndeveloper would understand what he is talking about.\nThe Development Services Director stated the matter could be\nexplored; there were conditions put on moving just door hinges.\nChair Johnson stated the historic integrity of the lobby should not\nbe disturbed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated it is not coming close to that; further\nstated $250,000 was allocated for hazardous materials and site\nconditions inquired whether there was a loan for the elevator and\nescalators.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the amount being allocated\nwas being taken from contingency.\nThe Development Services Director responded the exact cost of the\nsite work was now known; stated the developer has spent in excess\nof the amount the City did a fine job of crafting the Disposition\nand Development Agreement; the City capped its exposure.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association Executive Director,\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-05-15", "page": 22, "text": "urged approval of the staff recommendations; stated perhaps\n$150,000 should be allocated for the ceiling to provide additional\nflexibility.\nChair Johnson inquired whether $100,000 is sufficient, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is being done with the Fox\nTheater, to which the Development Services Director responded it\nwould be used for educational purposes.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendations\nwith direction that as much restoration work be done as possible in\nthe historic theater so that the project does not end with money\nleft in the contingency budget.\nCommissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 12:18 a.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\nMay 15, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf"}