{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 17, 2007- -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:23\np.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-340 - ) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association\non the 23rd Annual Art and Wine Faire.\nRob and Tracy McKean presented wine glasses to the Council and\nencouraged everyone to attend the Faire.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to award\nContract [paragraph no. 07-343] was removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*07-341) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nJuly 3, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-342) Ratified bills in the amount of $956,649.00.\n(07-343) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$79,955 to Muller & Caulfield Architects for Architectural and\nRegular Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 2, "text": "Engineering Services to evaluate alternatives and develop costs\nfor the Carnegie Restoration and Preservation Project.\nThe Building Official gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated line item SD19 shows a workshop\nfee for the design of a permit center; the fee is the same for a\nworkshop to review design of alternative uses; $6,000\nis\nallocated for revised plans and 3D visual materials for a permit\ncenter; $1,360 is allocated for alternative uses; that he wants\nto ensure that the building's use is not predisposed.\nalternative uses should get an equal, if not larger, percentage\nof study time; a policy decision has not been made for the\nbuilding's use.\nThe Building Official stated a meeting is scheduled tomorrow\nwith Muller & Caulfield to discuss the issue if the Contract is\nawarded; the intent is to have two workshops equally divided\nbetween all options.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether five workshops would be\nconducted.\nThe Building Official responded two public workshops would be\nconducted; the Contractor used the word \"workshop\" when\naddressing meetings with the Council, Historic Advisory Board,\nand Planning Board.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendatior with the understanding that there is no\npredisposed use for the Carnegie Building.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n( 07-344 - ) Ordinance No. 2967, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute All Necessary Agreements and Documents for Termination\nof the Ground Lease and Execution of a Master Lease that Divides\nthe Leasehold Estate that is the Subject of the Lease into Three\nSeparate Leasehold Estates to Ballena Isle Marina, LP, a\nCalifornia Limited Partnership, of Real Property Held Under\nLease By and Between the City of Alameda and Ballena Isle\nMarina, a Limited Partnership. \" Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 3, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( 07-345 - ) Resolution No. 14133, \"Appointing Gregory L. Hamm as a\nMember of the Public Utilities Board. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-346) Public Hearing to consider Certification of a Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report and approval of Northern Waterfront\nGeneral Plan Amendment (GPA 07-0002) and Citywide Childcare\nPolicies: General Plan amendment to designate approximately 110\nacres of northern waterfront industrially designated properties\nto a specified mixed-use designation and adopt certain general\nplan policies to guide the future development of the area, guide\nfuture development citywide, and guide decisions regarding\nchildcare citywide. The Northern Waterfront project area is\ngenerally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista\nAvenue on the south, Grand Street on the east, and the\nOakland/Alameda Estuary on the north;\n(07-346A) Resolution No. 14134, \"Certifying the Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report for the Northern Waterfront General\nPlan Amendment (State Clearinghouse #2002102118) \" Adopted;\n07-346B) Resolution No. 14135, \"Making Findings Regarding\nEnvironmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings\nConcerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and\nReporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding\nConsiderations in Accordance With the California Environmental\nQuality Act for the Northern Waterfront and Child Care Policy\nGeneral Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse #2002102118)\n\"\nAdopted; and\n(07-346C) Resolution No. 14136, \"Approving General Plan\nAmendment, GPA07-0002 : General Plan Amendments to : (A) Amend the\nGeneral Plan Land Use Diagram to Change the Designation of\nApproximately 110 Acres Within the Northern Waterfront to\nSpecified Mixed Use and Medium Density Residential, and (B)\nAmend Sections and Associated Tables of the General Plan. \"\nAdopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation;\nRegular Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 4, "text": "addressed comments submitted by former Councilmember Barbara\nKerr and Chris Buckley.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she read former Councilmember\nKerr's letter differently [than the Planning Services Manager]\n;\nshe did not get the impression that former Councilmember Kerr is\nsaying that Work/Live should be prohibited; the concern is that\nthere would be no way to go back and require more parking if an\napplicant received a Use Permit for Work/Live and decided to\nchange the use to one that needed more parking.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated former Councilmember Kerr\nis referring to the former Clamp Swing building the Use Permit\noriginally came to the Planning Board for seven Work/Live units\nin the entire building; the Use Permit was approved; one of the\nWork/Live units was removed and used for a permitted use; the\nZoning Ordinance has a Rolling Ten rule regarding parking;\nparking requirements do not have to be met for a permitted use\nin a building over ten years old; the Conditional Use Permit\nprocess is used to override the Rolling Ten rule.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that part of the Work/Live\nrationale was to make it easier for property owners to\nrehabilitate historical buildings rather than tear down the\nbuildings.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated parking issues can be\naddressed with the Work/Live Use Permit; Council could consider\nreserving the right to re-open a Use Permit to address parking\nif the permitted use changes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she likes the idea [of re-\nopening a Use Permit] the issue should be brought back for\nCouncil discussion.\nMayor Johnson questioned whether the ordinance establishing the\nRolling Ten rule should be reviewed; stated parking for\npermitted uses is not addressed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded both ordinances could be\nreviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Planning Board had\nreservations about the four-story height limit; inquired how\nheight limits are represented in the General Plan.\nRegular Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 5, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded the General Plan\nAmendment addresses the policy in E-T 5; stated the policy\nrequires that building heights be maintained between one and\nfour stories; the Planning Board added the language : \"consider\ntaller buildings if at least 30% of the Encinal Terminals site\nis maintained for publicly accessible open space and/or on-site\nwater features.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any buildings [in Alameda]\nare taller than four stories.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Marina Village\nApartments.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Northern Waterfront Committee\nwas against having one large structure on the site; 30% or more\nmight be open space because of the site's configuration and\nsetbacks.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the current policy pushes\nthe plan in the direction of having open space and consolidating\nthe building program into a few buildings or one building with a\nsingle footprint; the question is whether the community is\ninterested in more open space or having lower heights, which\nwould result in a site plan with development spread over the\nsite.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nProponents ( In favor of the staff recommendations : Former\nCouncilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association [submitted\ndocument ] ; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Michael Krueger,\nAlameda; Don Peterson, Alameda; Nick Cabral, Alameda.\nNeutral Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; Richard W. Rutter, Alameda;\nStuart Rickard, Northern Waterfront Action Committee.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated the Planning Board's additional language is\nmore specific than needed in a General Plan; suggested removing\nthe Planning Board language ; stated the Encinal Terminals site\nreference has very specific language for a General Plan;\nRegular Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 6, "text": "language could be changed to require maintaining building\nheights between one and four stories unless allowed by the\nzoning.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many feet is four stories, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded forty to fifty\nfeet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Del Monte building is the\ndefining feature of the Northern Waterfront; the Encinal\nTerminals area would have substantial open space; a trade-off is\nnot needed because of the Tidelands Trust and Bay Conservation\nand Development Commission requirements.\nMayor Johnson stated that she was going up and down the Estuary\non the Coast Guard Cutter tonight people are unaware of the\ninaccessibility of the area; she cannot wait until the\nwaterfront is opened to the public; the General Plan should move\nforward; adjustments can be made later.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated developers should be put on notice\nas to what the community considers to be a general height limit.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would be addressed in\nthe zoning ordinance.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative;\nstated the policy could be amended to remove the added Planning\nBoard language; the policy should be moved to be placed at the\nbeginning of the policies relating to the entire area, rather\nthan under Encinal Terminals.\nMayor Johnson inquired how high are the Wind River buildings, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded four stories.\nMayor Johnson stated the amendment should address height in\nfeet, not stories; four stories is ambiguous.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the idea would be to move\nthe policy to the general policy section and to state that\nheights would be limited to the specific height in feet\ncomparable to the Wind River buildings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson regarding\nthe need for the amendment to move forward; stated parking and\nRegular Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated developers need to be prepared to mitigate\nto the fullest extent possible when building units on a truck\nroute.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated mitigation would not be a\nsound wall.\nMayor Johnson stated that setbacks and buffers might not allow\nas much development.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a park is hidden along the\nshoreline; the park would be opened up; the handling of the\ntruck route is a concern; parking would become extremely\nimportant ; positive steps have been taken with Littlejohn Park;\nthe truck route would dissipate if the project moves forward;\ninquired whether the Planning Services Manager had any comments\non information submitted by former Councilmember Kerr.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that an additional\npolicy could be added to the beginning of the document that\nwould provide direction for the consideration of zoning\namendments to address the parking question; the General Plan\nshould not state one thing and the Zoning Ordinance state\nsomething else; the General Plan should make it a high priority\nRegular Meeting\n7\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 8, "text": "to rethink the parking requirement for both conditional\npermitted uses and permitted uses so that the rezoning must be\naccompanied by the valuation.\nMayor Johnson stated that having the policy direction is a good\nsuggestion.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Services\nManager had recommended verbiage.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated language could be added to\ninclude that non-residential uses are preferred along the truck\nroute; however, if residential uses are proposed along the truck\nroute, design must minimize impacts with truck routes; a parking\npolicy would be inserted in the guiding section regarding re-\nexamining the parking requirements to ensure there is adequate\nparking for all sites, both permitted and conditionally\npermitted uses; the Encinal Terminals height policy would be\nmoved to the guiding policy; the Planning Board's additional\nlanguage would be removed; the height would be described as a\nnumber of feet [not stories) and would be comparable to the Wind\nRiver buildings.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she wants to ensure that there is\nconsistency in the great strides to reduce the number of\nvehicles through joint or shared parking programs in order to\navoid displacing waterfront property and maximizing public\naccess; she hopes that the issue is clear pervasively, not just\nat the Del Monte site.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any proposals\nfor industrial use.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded industrial use proposals\nare not coming in because of the loss of rail and shipping uses.\nMayor Johnson stated Harbor Bay Business Park has a better\nopportunity for industrial because the Business Park provides\neasy access off of Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated noticing was a concern for Alameda\nLanding; staff should be vigilant to ensure that notification is\nnot limited to 300 feet of the existing neighborhoods.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions with\nRegular Meeting\n8\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 9, "text": "three amendments outlined by the Planning Services Manager\nregarding parking, height limits, and uses along the truck\nroutes, which would be placed in the guiding policy or\nappropriate sections that apply to the entire Northern\nWaterfront, not specific projects.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that Work/Live parking\nregulations and general parking regulations be brought back to\nCouncil for discussion.\nThe Planning Service Manager stated staff is working on\ncommercial parking requirements with the Development Services\nDepartment; the matter is scheduled to come to the Planning\nBoard the first meeting of September and would then come to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Rolling Ten rule\nwould be addressed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Rolling Ten analysis\nwould be addressed when the commercial parking recommendations\nare presented to the Planning Board.\nMayor Johnson stated caution must be taken when addressing\npolicy for the downtown areas; changes do not have to be made\neverywhere; downtown and other appropriate areas could be\nexcluded.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he hopes that opportunities\nwould be available to discuss shuttle services as larger\ndevelopments come forward; hopefully, the Transportation\nCommission would start working on the issue.\n(07-347) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14137,\n\"Authorizing the Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste\nManagement Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills.\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a letter was received from a lady\nwho could not attend the Council meeting due to medical reasons;\ninquired whether the lady would be exempt.\nRegular Meeting\n9\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 10, "text": "The Public Works Director responded the City received three\nletters; stated staff recommends that Council authorize the City\nManager to work with the three property owners to reach a\ncompromise.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the list [of property\nliens ] changed.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe original list had 65 property owners; the revised list has\n32 property owners.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the total amount\nof\ndelinquent charges, to which the Public Works Director responded\n$16,849.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the list has decreased.\nThe Public Works Director stated the list has decreased because\nof the threat of placing a lien on the property.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the list includes\nrepeaters, to which the Public Works Director responded the list\nincludes one repeater.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she received letters and emails\nregarding the issue; inquired whether staff has a sense of\nwhether Alameda County Industries (ACI) made efforts to resolve\npayment and service issues prior to the point of placing a tax\nlien on the property.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff worked with ACI on\nsaid concerns in the past; stated three letters are sent to\nproperty owners advising that the City has the option of\ncollecting delinquent bills via property taxes if the bill is\nnot paid.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether ACI helps resolve some of the\nissues before bringing the matter to the City.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he thinks ACI does a\nvery good job with customer service; stated the customer service\nlogs are very explicit; ACI makes the public aware that the City\nhas a vacancy exemption.\nRegular Meeting\n10\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the numbers [delinquent charges ] are\ndeclining from four to five years ago.\nThe Public Works Director stated there were 73 delinquent\naccounts in 2006 and 52 delinquent accounts in 2006.\nMayor Johnson stated everyone needs to pay their garbage bills;\nACI and City staff work to resolve legitimate disputes; the City\nhas to be very careful not to send the message that property\nowners can complain to ACI and bills will be cut in half.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the $2,275 administrative\nfee goes to the City.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe fee is meant to cover staff costs.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the fee is adequate, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is Craig Anderson's main issue.\nThe Public Works Director responded Mr. Anderson states that he\nwas receiving service and then ACI stopped collecting garbage.\nMayor Johnson stated sometimes her garbage is not collected; ACI\ncollects the garbage when she calls.\nThe Public Works Director stated the franchise agreement\nrequires that garbage be collected within twenty-four hours of\nreceiving a call.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff would be responding to the\nthree letters received.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff would work with Mr.\nand Mrs. Otto, Mr. and Mrs. Anderson, and Mr. Baird.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired about Jeffrey Allen.\nThe Public Works Director responded Mr. Allen is not on the\nlist; stated Mr. Allen requested to be advised of any\ndelinquency ahead of time; the property owner and tenant are\nnotified when a bill is sixty days late.\nRegular Meeting\n11\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated he does not want the City to get\ninto the landlord business.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated the\nissue needs to be resolved between the property owner and\ntenant.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff responded to Mr. Allen, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with\nthe proviso that staff work with the three property owners who\nsubmitted letters.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote -5.\n(07-348) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications,\nAmendments and Deletions to the California Building Code) of\nSection 13-2 (Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building\nand Housing) to Incorporate Specific Requirements for the\nInstallation of Fire Extinguishing Systems. Introduced.\nThe Fire Marshall gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what was the feedback from the\ncommunity.\nThe Fire Marshall responded commercial property owners did not\nattend the community forum meetings stated attendees included\npeople interested in residential properties, particularly\nbuildings that are three units and larger feedback was\npositive.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether business associations were\nnotified.\nThe Fire Marshall responded that he met with all business\nassociations i stated information was taken back to respective\nBoards articles were published in each business association\nnewsletter.\n.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether 25% is a typical threshold.\nRegular Meeting\n12\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 13, "text": "The Fire Marshall responded that he and the Building Official\nfelt that 25% is a reasonable trigger.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the threshold for other cities.\nThe Fire Marshall responded the threshold varies; stated some\ncities use the assessed value of the property; assessed value is\nnot a consistent way of evaluating a trigger point for\nretrofitting; the City would be using the International Code\nCouncil Building Valuation Data chart which is based on\noccupancy type, building and construction type, and square\nfootage.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a property owner could get an\nappraisal if they disagree with the assessed value.\nThe Fire Marshall responded the property owner could go through\nthe appeal process and present an appraisal.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes the idea of using the\ncurrent value rather than the assessed value.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested an explanation on how valuation\nis based on occupancy.\nThe Building Official stated the evaluation method is used for\npermits to determine the value of a project; the International\nCode Council has a chart that looks at the cost of doing\ndifferent types of construction nationwide; numbers are\nrealistic.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether restaurants are compared\nto restaurants and plain retail space with plain retail space,\nto which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether 25% is a typical threshold based\non current value, to which the Fire Marshall responded the\nthreshold varies.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether other cities have a similar\nordinance, to which the Fire Marshall responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson requested examples of the thresholds.\nRegular Meeting\n13\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 14, "text": "The Fire Marshall stated that he did not have said information.\nMayor Johnson stated she wants to know whether Alameda would be\nsignificantly different from other cities.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the permit activity in\nthe past year where the 25% threshold was reached and sprinklers\nwere not required.\nThe Building Officials responded that he did not know; stated\n25% of the current value is pretty high.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of commercial\nbuildings have sprinklers.\nThe Fire Marshall responded since 1983 every commercial building\nlarger than 5,000 square feet has a fire sprinkler.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 50% of commercial stock\ndoes not have sprinklers, to which the Fire Marshall responded\n50% is a good estimate.\nMayor Johnson stated sprinklers are important; damage was\nminimized at one of the fires over the weekend [Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center (FISC) ] because of the sprinkler system.\nThe Fire Marshall stated the FISC property would have been\ncompletely lost if not for the sprinkler system.\nMayor Johnson stated people should not be discouraged to make\nminor improvements because of a large sprinkler system expense;\n25% of the current value avoids the problem; the changes are\ngood; the ordinance should move forward.\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, urged introduction\nof the ordinance.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated he supports the ordinance with the\nexception of Group U buildings.\nMayor Johnson inquired how detached buildings on residential\nlots would be handled.\nThe Fire Marshall responded Group U Occupancy types typically\nhave a lot of equipment and storage inside; a fire could affect\nRegular Meeting\n14\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 15, "text": "adjacent buildings if the building is larger than 300 square\nfeet; an appeal process is available to property owners to\nrequest the requirement be waived.\nMayor Johnson stated it would not be expensive to install\na\nsprinkler system in a garage.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated sprinkler systems need a bigger\nwater head.\nThe Fire Marshall stated a 3/4\" service would serve a Group U\nOccupancy Bayport homes are 3,500 to 4,000 square feet; a one-\ninch service is sufficient.\nVice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-349) - David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that he is disappointed\nthat trees have been cut at Godfrey Park; the vast, open field\noffers no shade or wind protection; staff was unable to furnish\nhim with Park plans; he does not understand why dirt is being\nbrought in if plans are to re-grade and re-sod.\nMayor Johnson requested that staff provide Mr. Kirwin with a\ncopy of the plans.\n(07-350) Pat Bail, Alameda, stated that the Estuary Park grass\nis dying; the Coast Guard gave the Park back to the Navy; the\nNavy told the Coast Guard to turn the water off. the Recreation\nand Park Director wrote a letter to the liaison between the Navy\nand the City; suggested that the Fire Department hook up to one\nof the fire hydrants and water the grass; stated more park space\nis needed; urged Council to address the issue; further stated\nthe Measure A Ad Hoc Committee was unable to reach a consensus\non the forum; Council direction was clear; Woody Miner was to\nprovide a history of Measure A; educational speakers were to\naddress how Measure A affects housing and transportation in\nAlameda; the forum would provide an opportunity for public\ninput; negotiations broke down on July 13; Appellants requested\nto select speakers and follow the format that was agreed to on\nJune 7; the Planning Board members indicated the agreement could\nRegular Meeting\n15\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 16, "text": "not be honored; the Planning Board members tried to take away\nthe powers of the Council to set policy the Planning Board's\njob is to apply policy, not make policy; the Appellants seek\nguidance from Council on how to proceed to create a forum that\nis educational and meaningful to all of Alameda.\nMayor Johnson requested that Council be provided an update on\nthe matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that staff should review the\nmotion passed by Council; the motion was to uphold the Planning\nBoard decision to have an ad hoc committee provide the Planning\nBoard with a meeting format with conditions that included the\nHousing Element and transportation; he does not recall a\nlimitation to one forum; he recalls a consensus that Woody Miner\nwould be an appropriate person to give a history of Measure A;\nrequested verification of Council direction.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Appellants felt different points\nof view would not be represented; a meaningful forum cannot\nexclude viewpoints.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Housing Element is an important\nsegment subsequently, transportation issues were discussed;\nCouncil needs to understand what direction was given.\nCouncilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese\nregarding verifying Council direction.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council wanted to have a well-\nbalanced meeting with more history and background; hopefully,\nthe issue is not a stalemate at this time.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is looking forward to the reports\nfrom the facilitator and the Planning and Building Director; she\nreviewed the video tapes of the Ad Hoc Committee meetings she\nis optimistic that there is more common ground than differences.\n( (07-351) Robert Todd, Alameda, stated that he attended the Ad\nHoc Committee meetings and discussed his opinion of said\nmeetings.\n(07-352) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed property and transit.\n(07-353) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, submitted\nRegular Meeting\n16\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 17, "text": "handout discussed the Ad Hoc forum.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-354) Written communication from the League of California\nCities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the\nLeague's 2007 Annual Conference.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of louncilmember Tam\nbeing the City's delegate and Councilmember deHaan being the\nalternate.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-355 ) Mayor Johnson stated that everyone is concerned with\nthe Estuary Park issue; different visions have been discussed\nfor the property; discussion needs to be elevated; the turf\nshould be kept alive while the issue is being resolved with the\nNavy; the City's goal is to have the property conveyed to the\nCity and retained as a park; the Navy wants to sell the\nproperty; circumstances are different than two years ago.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that staff assess the field.\nMayor Johnson stated watering solutions need to be considered.\n(07-356) Councilmember deHaan stated there has been discussion\nabout the moth ball fleet; Alameda is not the place to scrape\noff barnacles and lead contaminated paint no one thought that\ndismantling Navy ships was a good idea for generating jobs in\n1995; one carrier was brought to Mare Island and became an\nenvironmental nightmarei barnacle scraping is not apropos [ in\nAlameda].\nThe City Manager stated the Development Services Director sent a\nletter to the Maritime Administration (MARAD) ; she will forward\nsaid letter to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there is an active dry dock on Mare\nIsland; Bay Ship and Yacht has completed a dry dock for a\ncontrolled environment for said activity.\nMayor Johnson stated Hunter's Point must have an active\nshipyard.\nRegular Meeting\n17\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 18, "text": "(07 - 357) Vice Mayor Tam requested that the Council meeting be\nadjourned in a moment of silence in memory of Archie Waterbury\nand Tom Matthews.\n(07-358) Councilmember Matarrese requested reviewing the\npotential for a big box ordinance; stated other communities have\nordinances which govern square footage and the amount of non-\ntaxable items that can be sold in the super stores; the term\n\"big box\" is used, but not defined, in the Northern Waterfront\nGeneral Plan Amendment and Economic Development Strategic Plan;\nthe term should be defined before project proposals are\ndiscussed; the City of Livermore and other cities are reviewing\nthe issue.\n(07- - 359 ) Councilmember Matarrese requested development of a\nwritten policy that would make closed session material available\nafter a discussed items are resolved or moot.\n(07-360) Councilmember deHaan stated that Council voted to\nreview the impact that big boxes would have on existing retail.\nfunding has not been available [for the study] companies should\nbe respective of wages and health benefits when a threshold of\n100 employees is hit; he would like to have said matter included\nin the big box discussions.\nMayor Johnson stated that several cities are going through the\nprocess of adopting a big box ordinance; the City has never\ndefined big box; a study of impacts does not need to be\ncompleted first; the ordinance should be brought forward soon;\nsuggested moving forward in reviewing ordinances in other\ncommunities.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many cities have already defined big\nbox; the threshold is approximately 50,000 square feet; Truckee\nhas defined big box accordingly [50,000 square feet].\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City of Livermore defines big\nbox as 90,000 square feet.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter would be brought back to Council\nfor discussion.\nRegular Meeting\n18\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 19, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\n(07-361) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson\nadjourned the Regular Meeting at 10:59 p.m. in a moment of\nsilence in honor of Archie Waterbury and Tom Matthews.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nRegular Meeting\n19\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 17, 2007- - -6:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Tam convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, and Tam - 4.\nAbsent : Mayor Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(07-338 - ) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant Jerry\nManis. ; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda.\n(07-339) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director. Employee Organizations :\nAll City Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Vice Mayor Tam announced that regarding Workers'\nCompensation Claim, Council received a briefing regarding the\nstatus of a Workers' Compensation claim and provided direction\nregarding settlement; regarding Labor, Council received\na\nbriefing on the status of labor negotiations with various City\nbargaining units.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Vice Mayor Tam 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\nBrown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JULY 17, 2007--7:25P. - M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:43 p.m.\nCommissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(07-026) Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation on the\ntheater, a Power Point presentation illustrating restoration\nwork, and a brief presentation on the garage.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether trees could be planted\ninstead of banners along the northern elevation of the parking\nstructure.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the property line is an\nissue; stated the property line is close to the garage i the\narchitect does not think there would be enough room to plant\ntrees.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff talked to Long's\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded easement discussions have\nbeen lengthy; stated the construction easement is a concern\nbecause trucks drive up to the storage warehouse.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the City is providing a huge\nbenefit to Long's that he would like to see staff push for a\nlive solution such as bamboo or Italian Cypress; requested more\ndetail on said option.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated vines may be a more feasible\nlandscape option; other options would be reviewed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that other options should be reviewed\nbecause of the cost and life expectancy of banners ; the\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 22, "text": "Historical Theater tenant improvements should start in early\nNovember\nThe Redevelopment Management stated tenant improvements include\nscreens, seats, audio-visual and projection equipment,\nconcession casework, ticket booth equipment, automatic ticket\nmachines, and signage.\nCommissioner deHaan stated said improvements should be completed\nby January; inquired whether the Cineplex schedule could be\naccelerated.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the City does not have\ncontrol over the Contract stated work is on schedule; staff is\nconfident that all work will be completed by March 2008.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Operation and\nManagement Plan is clear.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded a detailed budget would be\npresented on August 7; stated staff feels that the budget is\nrealistic; staff will have a better understanding of costs once\nproposals are received.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether staff is solidified on the\nfee structure.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated a\nfifty-cent per-hour rate is recommended, which is the same as\nstreet parking.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the contractor would be\nresponsible for fee collection and hours of operation.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the contractor would be\nresponsible for revenue collection; stated staff recommends that\nthe Police Department be responsible for enforcement.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he hopes that the Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) would provide support to keep the\narea clean.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated the parking management company\nshould perform daily trash pick up.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 23, "text": "Christopher Buckley, Alameda, submitted handout stated the\nproposed banners should be larger to cover the three center\nbays; a trompe d'oil treatment or grilled panels are options.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the recommended options could be\ndone after the completion of the parking structure, to which Mr.\nBuckley responded in the affirmative.\nRichard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated evergreens are a good\ndecoration studio; that he does not think money should be spent\non\nbanners; banners draw attention to the fa\u00e7ade\nan\narchitectural grilled screen system might be a possibility.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, stated the PSBA Board of Directors urges the\nCommission to take a low cost option.\nChair Johnson stated the Cineplex developer should not be\nrushed; the City waited more than twenty-six years for the\nHistorical Theater restoration; staff should inform the\nCommission if other [restoration] items need to be addressed\nwhile there is the opportunity; options need to be weighed\ninquired whether damaged niches are being replaced.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe niches have been re-varnished.\nChair Johnson stated that she does not want items overlooked.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated a list of items and cost\nestimates would be provided.\nChair Johnson stated the project team is doing a great job.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether staff would ensure that\nthe viewable improvements, such as countertops and cabinetry,\nare the same quality and are appropriate for the restored\ninterior, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMINUTES\n(07-027) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement\nCommission (CIC) meeting and the Special CIC meeting held on\nJuly 3, 2007. Approved.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-07-17", "page": 24, "text": "Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nJuly 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf"}