{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, August 7, 2007\nThe meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Doug deHaan\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nVice Chair Lena Tam\nAbsent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.\n2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.\nApproval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by\nMember Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o\nnoes, 0 abstentions.\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the\nAmount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact\nAnalysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.\nLeslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning\nSystems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact\nassessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost\nwill be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current\nfinancial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair\nJohnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent\npossible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese\nagreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public\nview was successful.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and\npassed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0\nabstentions.\n3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel\nLease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing\nComplex", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 2, "text": "David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker\nobligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends\nthat the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be\na simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still\nfully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as\nthe property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for\nscreening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options\nfor conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation\nrequest, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.\nMember deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over\nwith a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed\nby the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 \"No no-cost EDC\" rules. All\nBoardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve\nthe parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction\nto convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.\nThe motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4\nayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.\n4.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nBill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus\nhousing at former North Housing.\n5.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and\ncompared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan\nexplained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed\nland. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord\nproject is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their\nbenefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail\noperations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the\nproperty. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the\nnext two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where\nAlameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing\ngolf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a\nRitz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the\ncommunity reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.\nMember Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called\nto move the agenda.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -AUGUST 7, 2007- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:43\np.m. Mayor Johnson led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCouncilmember Gilmore - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-363) Presentation by East Bay Municipal Utility District on\nwater conservation.\nDoug Linney, Ward 5 Representative, discussed East Bay Municipal\nUtility District's perspective on the current water shortage in\nCalifornia.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the City could work with East Bay\nMunicipal Utility District on a more efficient irrigation system\nfor use at the Coast Guard facility.\nMr. Linney responded the issue would be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated there was a leaking fire hydrant at the former\nBase; a lot of water is wasted from leaking hydrants and sprinkler\nsystems that do not function properly.\n(07-364) Presentation of the Horace Carpentier Long Wharf Award\nfor the Bridgeside Center.\nDoug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, and Sandra Thelfel,\nWaterfront Action Executive Director, presented the Horace\nCarpentier Long Wharf Award.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City is honored to receive the Award;\nboth sides of the Estuary need to work on improving access to the\nEstuary she appreciates the improvements made on the Oakland side;\nthe Alameda Landing project will open a large section of the\nEstuary to the public; Chuck Foster stated that the Estuary will\nbecome the Rivera of the Bay Area.\nRegular Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 2, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07-365],\nrecommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications [paragraph no. 07- -\n368], , Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute a Lease [paragraph no. 07-370], and Final Passage of\nOrdinance [paragraph no. 07-372] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar 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 - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ] [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. ]\n(07-365) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on July 17, 2007.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes with the\nfollowing corrections to Page 17 and 18: \"...Bay Ship and Yacht has\ncompleted a dry dock for a controlled environment for said\nactivity\" and \"...he would like to have said matter included in the\nbig box discussions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember deHaan, Councilmember\nMatarrese, Vice Mayor Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 4.\n[ (Absent :\nCouncilmember Gilmore - 1. ]\n(*07-366) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,621,980.23\n( *07-367) - Recommendation to accept the work of Regency Centers for\nthe repair to public drainage facilities in coordination with\nconstruction of the Bridgeside Shopping Center improvements.\nAccepted.\n(07-368) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Grand Street Bridge and Ballena\nBoulevard bridge repair and resurfacing, No. P.W. 11-06-24.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Grand Street bridge has no\nstructural impact other than the guardrail; inquired whether the\nguardrail would be included in the scope of work.\nRegular Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 3, "text": "The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated work\nwould include preventative maintenance of exposed concrete.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated newspaper articles have addressed the\ncurrent situation with the Minneapolis bridges; requested\ninformation on the condition of Alameda bridges and the Tube.\nThe Public Works Director stated Alameda bridges and the Tube are\nnot unsafe; CalTrans completed the Webster Street and Posey Tube\nretrofitting in 2003; the retrofitting brought both tubes to a \"no\ncollapse\" standard, which means that the tubes would not collapse\nin the event of an 8.0 earthquake on the Hayward Fault; service is\nnot guaranteed; the Park Street, Fruitvale Avenue and High Street\nbridges are maintained by the County; retrofitting is anticipated\nto be completed by the end of 2009; efforts are being made to\nsecure funding for a lifeline for the Fruitvale Avenue bridge the\nBay Farm Island bridge was retrofitted by the State in 1998;\ncurrently, the Ballena Boulevard bridge is being seismically\nretrofitted; a federal grant is providing 90% funding; hopefully, a\nState grant will provide the other 10%.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that the bridges\nand the Tube might not be the City's lifeline and would not provide\na connection to the mainland, Oakland and the rest of the East Bay.\nVice Mayor Tam requested clarification on: 1) the process that\nCalTrans uses to rate a bridge deficient, 2) the ratings of the\nPark Street, Fruitvale Avenue, and High Street bridges, and 3) the\nfrequency of bridge inspections.\nThe Public Works Director responded the bridges are inspected every\ntwo years; stated the rating is based on several different factors. i\nthe High Street Bridge is rated 46.4 on a rating of one to a\nhundred.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether below 50 is deficient.\nThe Public Works Director responded below 50 is considered\nstructurally deficient but does not mean the bridge is unsafe to\ntravel; stated Alameda bridges score low because detour length is\none of the major rating indices; decking, approach, and lane width\nare considered; structurally, the High Street bridge is in very\ngood condition.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the foundation is inspected, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what is the rating for the other bridges.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Park Street bridge is 67.8,\nthe Fruitvale Avenue bridge is 68.6, and the Grand Street bridge is\n93.6.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the bridges are structurally\nsimilar.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he would research the\nissue.\nMayor Johnson stated that the matter should continually be\nreviewed; California is making investments in infrastructure;\npeople need to understand the consequences of neglecting\ninfrastructure inquired whether improvements would include making\nthe Grand Street bridge more attractive over the water.\nThe Public Works Director responded the railing would be replaced;\nstated one bid would be for replacing the railing in kind, which\nwould require keeping the cyclone fence; another bid would be for a\nhigher railing, which would allow the cyclone fence to be removed.\nMayor Johnson stated that some Oakland bridges are much more\nattractive [than Alameda's ; railings should be safe but also\nattractive; the public should be able to view the waterways.\nth\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the 112 Street Dam in Oakland has\nthe same railing height as the Grand Street bridge but does not\nhave a cyclone fence; requested a report on bridge ratings for\nstructural integrity and what needs to be done to ensure Alameda\nbridges are structurally sound.\nMayor Johnson requested that landscaping be reviewed to ensure that\nlagoon views are not blocked.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ]\n( *07-369) Resolution No. 14138, \"Authorizing the City's\nParticipation in the 211 Program and Appropriating $25,000 for\nFiscal Year 2007-2008. \" Adopted.\n(07-370) Introduction of Ordinance Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute a Lease of Vacant Properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304\nRegular Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 5, "text": "Alameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street with Thompson Properties\n(Lessor) for a City Parking Lot. Introduced.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether additional parking space\naccess is being considered.\nThe Development Services Director responded the parking study would\nmake a lot of different recommendations stated parking is an issue\nof quantity and more importantly, location.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether monthly parking would be\navailable, to which the Development Services Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA) would perform the coordination.\nThe Development Services Director responded that PSBA would\ncoordinate and manage the parking lot.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether twelve parking spaces would be\nadded, to which the Development Services Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what would be the fee per space, to\nwhich the Development Services Director responded $80.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $80 would cover costs, to\nwhich the Development Services Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether tandem parking was\nconsidered.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded in the negative; stated\ntandem parking would not work in the lot.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated tandem parking should be considered\nto increase the number of spaces.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking lot surface is\nadequate.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded not at this moment.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, stated twelve people have been identified to\nsign a one-year contract with PSBA for a designated parking space\nRegular Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 6, "text": "at $80 per month; the lot would be surveyed; thirteen spaces would\ngenerate $1,040 per month and would cover the monthly cost in\naddition to paying PSBA $40 for administration; $960 would be\ngenerated from twelve spaces; PSBA Board of Directors approved\ncovering the remaining $40 per month; the issue can reviewed after\na year.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the spaces would be available to the\npublic in the evenings and weekends.\nMr. Ratto responded in the negative; stated most businesses are\nopen seven days per week; Lots A and C do not guarantee a space;\nPSBA would pay for new signage indicating that the lot is a\npermitted lot.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ]\n(*07-371) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Community\nImprovement Plan for the West End Community Improvement Project to\nExtend Certain Plan Time Limitations by Two Years Pursuant to\nSenate Bill 1096. Introduced.\n(07-372) Ordinance No. 2968, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments and\nDeletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13-2 (Alameda\nBuilding Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) to\nIncorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire\nExtinguishing Systems. Finally passed.\nSteven Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern Alameda\nCounty, stated the Association supports the ordinance; the Oakland\nMunicipal Code waives the sprinkler requirement if a hydrant\nis\nmoved closer to the proximity of the building.\nVice Mayor Tam moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ]\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-373) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of a Planning Board\napproval of Planned Development Amendment PDA05-0001, Major Design\nReview DR05-0010, and Use Permits UP06-0003 and UP06-0013 allowing\nRegular Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 7, "text": "the demolition of an existing bank building and redevelopment of\nthe property with a twenty-four hour gas station located at 2234\nOtis Drive. The property is located within a Central Business and\nPlanned Development overlay zoning district (C-2-PD) ; and\n(07-373A) Resolution No. 14139, \"Denying the Appeal and Upholding\nthe Planning Board's Approval of Planned Development Amendment\nPDA05-0001 Major Design Review DR05-0010, and Use Permits UP06-\n0003 and UP06-0014. Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of Appeal) : Debra L. Banks, Alameda (submitted\nhandout) .\nOpponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Deborah Kartiganer, Cassidy,\nShimko, Dawson, Kawakami; Mike Corbitt, Alameda Towne Centre.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated the public is concerned with the loss of the\nChevron Gas Station at the former South Shore Center the Planning\nBoard requested that a gas station be located at the Alameda Towne\nCentre; previously, four different gas stations were located at the\nformer South Shore Center.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the highest retail leakage has come\nfrom the loss of gas and service stations the proposed gas station\nis similar to the Nob Hill high-volume, discount gas station; the\npublic is concerned with the Otis Street corridor; Alameda Towne\nCenter is approximately 60% full and would be impacted further as\nthe Town Centre grows; a mitigation requirement addressed\ninstallation of a signal at a future date; the location is not the\nbest for the future; the intersection would become very active; the\nOtis Street corridor serves the shopping center and traffic through\nthe island; he understands the community's continued concern; he is\nnot happy with the location; the number of tankers has not been\nconfirmed; larger tanks should be considered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Safeway provided a range for tanker\nmovement ; inquired whether said range changed.\nTodd Paradise, Safeway Real Estate Manager, Fuel Center Northern\nCalifornia Division, responded strategy is consistent across all\nRegular Meeting\n7\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 8, "text": "markets; stated options include street pricing and a three-cent\n[per gallon] discount for card holdersi one delivery is expected\nper day the conditions of approval limit the delivery time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether tank capacity could be\nincreased.\nMr. Paradise responded the proposed site would be a blending site;\nstated blending would be done at the pump.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether it would be fair to say that\nthe proposed site would be a high-volume discount station, to which\nMr. Paradise responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed station would be\nsimilar to the Nob Hill station.\nMr. Paradise responded that he is not aware of the average volume\nfor Nob Hill stations stated he thinks of Costco in terms of a\nhigh-volume gas station; the current Nob Hill pricing is most\nlikely promotional.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many tankers are delivered to the\nDublin Safeway gas station.\nMr. Paradise responded said station could have one and a half to\ntwo deliveries per day.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed gas station\nwould go over one tanker per day.\nMr. Paradise responded marketing research indicates the station\nwould receive one tanker per day.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested verification on the delivery hours.\nDeborah Kartiganer, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson, Kawakami, stated the\nconditions of approval state that Safeway would not have trucks\ndelivered to the site between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.\nto 6:00 p.m. during the weekdays and between 11:30 a.m. and 1:30\np.m. on weekends.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when trucks are moved normally.\nMr. Paradise responded trucks are moved twenty-four hours per day;\nstated a load of fuel only leaves a terminal full for safety\nreasons ; larger tanks provide a greater window [for delivery].\nRegular Meeting\n8\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one of the mitigating factors\nwas to signal the intersection.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated a\ntraffic signal would be installed at the Trader Joe's driveway into\nthe shopping center; the exit would be right turn only from the gas\nstation onto Otis Drive; a mitigation measure requires monitoring\nof traffic flow for three to five years; the Applicant would need\nto turn traffic into a one-way flow through the gas station from\nthe shopping center and back out to Otis Drive if there is a\nproblem with cars backing out into Otis Drive and interfering with\ntraffic; Omni Means felt that the driveway would flow fine without\nvehicles cueing out into Otis Drive.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what would be the cost for a signal\nat the intersection, to which the Supervising Planner responded\napproximately $300,000 to $350,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Safeway would be contributing\nto the funding.\nThe Supervising Planner responded Safeway's contribution would be\nbased on the pro-rated share of traffic going through the\nintersection; stated the amount would depend on build out.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said contribution is in the\nagreement.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\npro rated contribution is approximately 10% of the total trips at\nthe intersection.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the rest [of the funding]\nwould be contributed by the shopping center.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the shopping center is not\nrequired to contribute anything at this point; stated Safeway would\ncontribute to the traffic signal cost if expansion is approved.\n***\nVice Mayor Tam left the dais at 9:02 p.m. and returned at 9:04 p. m.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether allocations were set.\nThe Supervising Planner responded a new traffic signal was required\nRegular Meeting\n9\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 10, "text": "at the corner of Otis Drive and Park Street in 2003 when the\nproposed shopping center expansion went through the Planning Board;\nstated the shopping center contributed whatever their portion was\nat that time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether said requirement was in\nwriting; stated the requirement would be triggered when the\nthreshold is met because of the gas station or the shopping center\nregardless of the additional square footage.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the traffic study looked at all\nthree scenarios; stated the left turn movement out of the shopping\ncenter onto Otis Drive during rush hour would fail the threshold\nusing the City's threshold of significance under cumulative\nconditions in 2025 the gas station would be contributing to a\nsignificant impact at the intersection.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the project [Safeway Gas\nStation] would require a signal without consideration of future\nexpansion.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the threshold would be triggered\nwithin the next twenty years when the project is considered with\nother projects have been approved but not built, including the\n112,000 square foot shopping center expansion approved by the\nPlanning Board a couple of years ago, other projects such as the\nChinese Christian School, and population growth of a half a percent\nper year stated the threshold would not be met with the project\n[Safeway Gas Station] alone.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that new information has not been\nprovided since the last Call for Review; a bio-diesel blend would\nbe available; different fueling options will need to be considered\nin the next twenty years; the developer has done a great job in\nbringing quality stores to Alameda Towne Center the proposed site\nis preferable to the previous gas station location.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution denying\nthe Appeal and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of Planned\nDevelopment Amendment PDA05-0001, Major Design Review DR05-0010,\nand Use Permits UP06-0003 and UP06-0014.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is not aware of another gas station\nthat provides bio-diesel in Alameda; many people are enthusiastic\nabout the gas station.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 11, "text": "Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated that she is very\ncomfortable with the Planning Board's and community's thorough\nvetting of conditions placed on the project ; the gas station would\nbe an asset to the neighborhood; the City Council received a\npetition with 3,000 signatures supporting the replacement of a gas\nstation in 2002 and 2003.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Councilmember Matarrese, Vice Mayor Tam, and\nMayor Johnson - 3. Abstentions: Councilmember deHaan - 1. (Absent :\nCouncilmember Gilmore - 1.\n(07-374) Recommendation to approve the second amendment to the\nContract for the use of HOME Funds between Alameda Development\nCorporation and the City of Alameda for Buena Vista Commons.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a construction schedule has been\ndeveloped.\nThe Development Services Director responded construction would\nstart within two weeks.\nMayor Johnson inquired when completion would be anticipated.\nThe Development Services Director responded twelve months. stated\nAlameda Development Corporation's (ADC's) portion would be\ncompleted sooner.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether milestones have been established for\nthe sweat equity portion.\nThe Development Services Director responded Habitat for Humanities\nhas screened the property owners; stated announcements would be\nsent out to engage the community's help to build the homes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Bob Haun would be managing\nthe schedule for Habitat for Humanities and ADC.\nThe Development Services Director responded the general contractor\nis Habitat for Humanities; stated Mr. Haun would help in overseeing\nthe project.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the land was acquired.\nRegular Meeting\n11\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 12, "text": "The Development Services Director responded money was given to ADC\nto purchase the property in 2000.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the process has been long; Habitat\nfor Humanities made the project happen; the partnership is great ;\ninquired whether ADC could partner with Habitat for Humanities on\nother projects.\nThe Development Services Director responded the City always looks\nfor future projects; stated the Community Improvement Commission\n(CIC) housing funds are committed for the next five to seven years.\nDan Lachman, ADC Executive Director, stated all necessary\nagreements have been completed between ADC and Habitat for\nHumanities the project has taken longer than expected; Habitat for\nHumanities would be playing the role of co-developer and general\ncontractor.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether ownership guidelines have\nbeen developed, to which Mr. Lachman responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Habitat for Humanities'\nguidelines would be used.\nMr. Lachman responded Habitat for Humanities has selected four\nhouseholds that would be involved in the self-help portion; ADC\nwould be selecting two moderate and two low-income buyers; a\nlottery would be conducted.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Gilmore - 1. ]\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-375) Dylan Saloner, Alameda, stated that Alameda Point should\nbe developed as a car free community; more information can be\nobtained on his website carfreepoint.net.\n(07-376) Nancy Schlegel, Alameda, stated her trash bins are\nblocked by recycling bins; requested help with the issue.\nMayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Schlegel contact the Public Works\nDirector.\nRegular Meeting\n12\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 13, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-377 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Public Art Commission and Transportation Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Rod A. Arrants to the Public Art Commission\nand Nielsen Tam to the Transportation Commission.\n(07-378) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended League of\nCalifornia Cities Executive Forum a couple of weeks ago; the League\nis requesting opposition to Assembly Bill 414 because the Bill\nrequires that cities review fair share housing on non-residential\nzoned land in a uniform way with no exceptions to community\nuniqueness.\n(07-379 ) Vice Mayor Tam stated she spoke to a Moraga City\nCouncilmember who works for CalTrans; the Moraga City Councilmember\nsuggested contacting the CalTrans Director to discuss the Webster\nStreet and Posey Tube lighting issue.\n(07-380 - ) Vice Mayor Tam stated that a lot of cities are looking\ninto Charter review; requested that staff provide Council with\nguidelines and parameters for forming a Charter Review Committee;\nthe focus would be on cleaning up some of the language dating back\nto 1930 addressing the Secret Police Fund, Council compensation,\nmeeting schedules, and the role of the Public Utilities Board.\n(07-381) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she wished to publicly\nacknowledge the Friends of the Library and Library Foundation for\nhaving an incredibly successful fundraiser for public art on\nSunday.\n(07-382) Councilmember deHaan thanked the Planning and Building\nDirector for providing feedback on the notification processi stated\nthe guidelines are not adequate for Alameda Landing, the Northern\nWaterfront, and Alameda Point; better public notification is\nneeded; requested feedback on additional ways to provide and expand\nnotification.\n(07-383) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received an email\nfrom Congressman Stark's office regarding the Federal Drug\nAdministration lab at Harbor Bay Business Park; the Commissioner\nhas suspended immediate plans for closing the lab and consolidating\nlabs; Alameda needs to continue to express interest in keeping the\nlab open and not consolidating labs because labs perform testing on\nincoming agriculture: adequate pharmaceutical and food protection\nRegular Meeting\n13\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 14, "text": "is important because of the recent increase in the Far East\nproduction of drug and food products without regulatory\ninfrastructure; continued lobbying efforts would be very helpful.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated things\ncome in from foreign countries that are not tested; problems are\nnot discovered until after the fact; foreign product testing should\nbe increased.\n(07-384) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities summer training session; encouraged\nCouncilmembers to attend next year; stated Councilmember deHaan\nattended also.\n(07-385) Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Emergency Operations\nPlan would be coming to Council in the spring.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated he thought the Plan would be\ncoming to Council next year; he will get the exact date.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that information be provided on\nthe rate limiting steps.\nMayor Johnson requested information on regional funding, how the\nfunding is used, and whether funding comes to Alameda.\n(07-386 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated Council should express thanks\nfor postponing the decision on the Harbor Bay Business Park lab;\nthe desire to retain the lab should be emphasized.\n(07-387) - Councilmember deHaan stated that the Tube lighting should\nbe completed by the end of the month.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the first set of lights are\nexpected to go in this week.\nMayor Johnson stated that staff should keep on eye on the matter.\n(07-388) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities meeting; he took a side trip to Fort Ord with the\nCity Manager.\n(07-389) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda Towne Center removed\nthe recycling center for clothes. The Salvation Army and Goodwill\nare still available; grocery stores should be mandated to have on-\nsite recycling if recycled materials are generated; suggested that\nstaff review the matter.\nRegular Meeting\n14\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that the issue should be broadened to provide\nthe public with other recycling opportunities. staff should not be\nlimited to just looking at shopping centers for recycling.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated recycling is being discouraged.\nVice Mayor Tam stated recycled material can be placed in the blue\nbins provided by Alameda County Industries (ACI).\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Alameda is not doing what should be\ndone [to provide recycling centers]\nMayor Johnson stated staff should not limit where to look [ for\nrecycling center opportunities]\n(07-390 - ) Mayor Johnson requested that the Police Chief address the\nanimal shelter issue.\nThe Police Chief stated a number of inquiries have been received\nregarding the animal shelter; animal welfare is the utmost\npriority; opportunities have come up to review practices; a report\nwill be provided to Council within a month; a volunteer coordinator\nhas been instituted.\nMayor Johnson requested that the report include information on\nlisting animals on different pet adoption websites and walking\nhours.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what is the volunteer to dog ratio.\nThe Police Chief responded four dogs were involved at the time of\nthe animal shelter situation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated at one point the shelter had forty-three\nvolunteers for eight dogs.\nMayor Johnson stated a lot of animals were at the shelter when the\nNaval Air Station closed; inquired whether the shelter has\nexperienced a significant decline in the number of animals at the\nshelter.\nThe Police Chief responded information is still being gathered.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said information would be included\nin the report, to which the Police Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nRegular Meeting\n15\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 16, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:53 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\n16\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -AUGUST 7, 2007- -7:32 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 10:34\np.m\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair Johnson -\n4.\nAbsent :\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore - 1.\nMINUTES\n(07-391CC/07-031CIC)\nMinutes of the Special Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on July 17, 2007 and the\nSpecial Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority and CIC Meeting held on July 18, 2007. Approved.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried\nby\nunanimous\nvoice\nvote\n-\n4.\n[Absent:\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore - 1. ]\nAGENDA ITEM\n( 07-032CIC)\nRecommendatior to review and approve the Civic\nCenter Parking Garage Management and Operations Plan and Operating\nBudget.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief Power Point\npresentation.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what is the rationale for having\nfree metered street parking and charging for garage parking during\nthe holiday season.\nThe Development Services Director responded having a free day in\nthe parking structure is different than bagging the metersi stated\nfree garage parking would be provided for the first few weeks; the\ngoal is to have a consistent policy.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that bagging the garage meters would\nbe easy; he is glad that there will be an aggressive community\nSpecial Joint Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 18, "text": "education process, particularly with the permitted spaces after\n10:00 a.m. on the top floor.\nChair Johnson stated that parking fines are a lot lower in Alameda\nthan other cities increasing street fines versus structure fines\nand free holiday parking should be reviewed; a report should be\nbrought back by nid-summer next year on opportunities for more\npermit parking; opportunities should be given for City employees\nand students to park in the parking structure if space is\navailable.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he would like to have feedback on\nwhat other cities charge for metered parking.\nThe Development Services Director stated a mix exists within\nvarious cities; caution needs to be exercised to ensure people do\nnot feel bad about the new experience [of using the parking\nstructure].\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what the hours of the two part-time\nenforcement officers would be.\nThe Development Services Director responded two officers would\nprovide coverage six days per week between the hours of 9:00 a.m.\nand 5:00 p.m.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether benefits would be provided, to\nwhich the Redevelopment Manager responded in the negative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is the annual meter revenue, to\nwhich the Business Development Manager responded approximately\n$500,000.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed bicycle parking.\nPauline Kelley, Alameda, complimented staff and stated that she\nsupports permitted parking.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated that he\nsupports the staff recommendation; enforcement is critical ;\nhabitual offenders should be fined heavily; the PSBA Board\nunanimously approved the parking plan with the provision that\ncameras be installed.\nCommissioner Tam stated the Economic Development Commission report\nshows that there are four to six part-time parking enforcement\nSpecial Joint Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 19, "text": "officers now; inquired whether anything can be done regarding\npeople feeding the meters in back of the Beauty College before the\nparking structure opens; stated customers are prevented from using\nthe spaces.\nThe Development Services Director responded students have a right\nto use the metersi stated efforts should be made to get the\nstudents to use the parking structure; other businesses' employees\nare feeding the meters also; enforcement is complicated.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated the Police Department is authorized to\nhave five part-time technicians; one technician is assigned to\nabandoned vehicle abatement; two additional part-time technicians\nwould increase enforcement work; tires are marked and citations are\nissued at the Beauty College; Alameda's parking fines are lower\nthan other cities.\nChair Johnson inquired whether there is a rule for reissuing a\nticket.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded a ticket can be reissued within two\nhours in a two-hour parking zone.\nChair Johnson stated the Beauty College students are not merchants\nand should not park at the Beauty College.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is the cost of a ticket.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded tickets vary between $17 and $24.\nCommissioner deHaan stated Bank of America's parking fine is $45.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated Alameda's parking citations are\napproximately one-third of what other cities charge.\nCommissioner Tam inquired what needs to be done to increase fines.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded increasing fines requires Council\naction.\nChair Johnson stated that parking structure fines should be lower\nto encourage use; street and surface parking fines should be\nincreased.\nCommissioner Tam stated that the Development and Disposition\nAgreement (DDA) stipulates that the parking rates would be fifty\nSpecial Joint Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 20, "text": "cents per hour Attachment 14 shows that the parking rate would be\nfifty cents per hour, and that the hourly charge would be kept\ncurrent by reasonable adjustments for inflation, but with minimum\nadjustments in twenty-five cent increments inquired whether\nopportunities would be available to review the parking rates beyond\nthe period stipulated in the DDA.\nThe Development Services Director responded the referenced\nattachment stipulates the operating parameters in the first couple\nof years of operation; stated rates could be adjusted.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether there is any frequency limitation\n[to rate increases], to which the Development Services Director\nresponded in the negative.\nCommissioner Tam stated that Table 1 shows a net balance of\n$255,281, which escalates to $1,200,803 in 2027; occupancy is\nestimated at 45% to 50%; inquired whether said estimate would\nprovide enough reserve funding; further inquired whether shortfalls\nexist; stated the existing parking revenue is subsidizing the\ngarage; inquired whether the existing parking meter revenue is\nCitywide.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nstated predominate collections are in the Park Street business area\nwhere there are more meters. the City would determine how to make\npayments in the future; the Brownfields Economic Development\nInitiative (BEDI) funds enter the cash flow in 2007 through 2009;\ndifferent revenue sources come into the cash flow four to five\nyears later; restructuring opportunities would be available;\ncurrently, a conservative approach is being taken where the debt\nservice payment would have a coverage of $1.25 million plus the\nfund balance; the debt could be covered by using the fund balance\nat a ratio of 2.0.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the parking meter revenue was mandated\nto help establish additional parking by ordinance; inquired what is\nthe gross parking meter revenue.\nThe Finance Director responded approximately $500,000 per year.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether any overhead is taken from the\n$500,000.\nThe Development Services Director responded the net revenue would\nbe provided.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 21, "text": "Commissioner Tam stated parking revenue should help enhance parking\nin other business districts throughout the City; $240,000 is\nestimated for daily parking and monthly permit revenue; inquired\nwhether the revenue would go up proportionally if the rate is\nincreased by twenty five cents, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nChair Johnson inquired how long the City is committed to only a\ntwenty-five cent increase.\nThe Development Services Director responded forever stated the\nincrease could be more than twenty-five cents but never less; it\nwould not be a problem to change to less than twenty-five cents.\nChair Johnson stated that an option might be to increase the street\nparking more than the parking structure; inquired whether\nopportunities are available to work with the Beauty College to\nensure that students are not creating parking problems.\nThe Development Services Director responded what is good for Park\nStreet will end up being good for the theater; stated opportunities\nwould be available to discuss what the City is trying to\naccomplish; theater spaces need to be guaranteed.\nChair Johnson inquired when said discussions would take place.\nThe Development Services Director responded discussions could take\nplace along the way.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he is having a hard time with fifty\npercent occupancy ; the busy time would be between 12:00 p.m. and\n5:00 p.m.\nThe Development Services Director stated summer and winter\noccupancies would be different.\nChair Johnson stated that morning parking is not easy to find on\nPark Street; adjustments can be made, such as the number of issued\npermits.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether there is a provision for a\nsecond elevator.\nThe Development Services Director responded a second elevator is\nnot budgeted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-07", "page": 22, "text": "Commissioner Matarrese suggested that revenue for a second elevator\nbe kept in mind.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Commissioner Gilmore - 1.\n]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 11:52 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nAugust 7, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf"}