{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -AUGUST 21, 2007 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:46\np.m. Vice Mayor Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(07-394) Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment\n[paragraph no. 07-395] would be heard first and Introduction of\nOrdinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Various\nSections [paragraph no. 07-407] would be continued.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-395) Resolution No. 14140, \"Appointing Rod A. Arrants as a\nMember of the Public Art Commission. \" Adopted; and\n( 07-395A) Resolution No. 14141, \"Appointing Nielsen Tam as a Member\nof the Transportation Commission (School District Representative) .\n\"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented\ncertificates of appointment to Mr. Arrants and Mr. Tam.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to award Contract\nin an amount not to exceed $98,000 [paragraph no. 07-401] and\nIntroduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAdding Section 2-19 [paragraph no. 07-402] were removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nRegular Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 2, "text": "Regarding the Minutes [paragraph no. *07-396], Councilmember deHaan\nmade a change to the minutes and Councilmember Gilmore noted that\nshe would abstain from voting on the minutes.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese 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(*07-396) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nAugust 7, 2007.\nApproved with the following change to Page 10: \"...a bio-diesel blend\nwould be available. \" [Note: Councilmember Gilmore abstained from\nvoting on the minutes. ]\n(*07-397) - Ratified bills in the amount of $3,590,952.92.\n( *07-398) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor period ending June 30, 2007. Accepted.\n(*07-399) Recommendation to accept the work of Vortex Marine\nConstruction, Inc., for the repair of the Main Street Ferry\nTerminal Pier. Accepted.\n(*07-400) Recommendation to award a Contract in the amount of\n$714,824, including contingencies, to Power Engineering\nContractors, Inc. for the Grand Street Sewer Pump Station, No.\nP.W. 04-07-16. Accepted.\n(07 -401 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in an amount not to\nexceed $98,000, including contingencies, to Moore, Icafano,\nGoltsman Inc. to provide Master Planning Services for the Alameda\nBeltline property.\nFormer Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, submitted a handout\nstated the City does not own or have access to the property; legal\nsettlement could take two years; the money could be more affective\nin the purchase price; the Request for Proposal (RFP) and plans do\nnot reflect the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan Committee\nthinking; the Task Force composition should not be the same as the\nSpecific Plan Committee; Council voted twice to have a community\ndriven Task Force; it is time that residents on the north side are\nconsidered stakeholders and consulted on the issue.\nRegular Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the litigation.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter has just been appealed;\nstated the Court of Appeal issue will take more than a year to make\na decision.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the issue is now going to the Court\nof Appeal, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nDebra Arbuckle, Alameda, stated the project has been going on for a\nlong time the intended use was a passive open space park; the\nrailroad has been stonewalling the City; the City does not own the\nproperty; the matter should be postponed; discussion should take\nplace when the City has the property.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City would not receive a\ndecision from the Court of Appeal for at least a year.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a year would\nbe optimistic; a decision could take a year and a half.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the matter would take so long.\nThe City Attorney responded the decision of the Trial Court was\nreached in November 2006; stated the exact wording of the Judge's\norder took five or six months there was a motion for a new trial;\nthe City prevailed on both matters.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City is prepared to oppose time\nextensions and delays from the railroad.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated an appeal\nwas filed at the end of July; a briefing schedule has not been\nestablished by the Court of Appeal.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the appeal process would be\naffected by engaging in a master planning process that solicits\nbroad community input.\nThe City Attorney responded it is difficult to say; stated parties\nshould be restricted to the record established at trial; she\nanticipates that the railroad would review the City's proposed\nplanning activities, read newspaper articles, and bring said\ninformation into the mix as to who should get the property.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for receiving public\ninput.\nRegular Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 4, "text": "The Recreation and Park Director responded the goal is completion\nby the end of the year.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether contamination would have any\naffect on the characteristio of the land.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the contamination would\nhave an affect on the ultimate placement of amenities; stated the\nMaster Plan would identify the types of amenities; amenities could\nbe interchangeable.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested an interpretation of what open space\nwould include.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated open space could include\nelements of a passive park with bike trails, picnic areas, and\nathletic fields.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Measure E discussions were headed\ntoward open space being a passive park area.\nMayor Johnson stated that [a passive park area] was not her\nrecollection; inquired what is the status on the possession of the\nproperty.\nThe City Attorney responded the City does not have possession\nstated the Alameda Belt Line [ABL] retains title and possession;\nthe City has no right to enter the property without ABL's\npermission.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has any control of what ABL\ncan do with the property since the City won the Trial Court\ndecision.\nThe City Attorney responded ABL cannot enter into an agreement to\nsell the property to someone else; stated improvements would be\ndone at ABL'S own risk.\nMayor Johnson requested that staff investigate whether the City has\ncontrol over what ABL can do to the property; stated ABL should be\nrequired to let the City know about any plans so that the City can\nchallenge said plans since the Trial Court decision states that the\nCity has the right to buy the property.\nThe City Attorney stated she would get back to Council on the\nmatter.\nRegular Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes the City would be\nvictorious at the appellate level; inquired whether the California\nSupreme Court has a statutory timeframe to decide whether a cert\nwould be granted or denied.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated usually a\ndecision is received within a month to sixty days.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated litigation may not be concluded for\ntwo and a half to three years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council should not act on the matter\nnow; he does not want to jeopardize any chance to get the property.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be tabled until there\nis a clearer picture of what is going on in the Courts.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates staff\nbringing the matter to Council's attention; staff worked on the\nmatter at Council's direction; information will be helpful when the\nCity moves forward on the matter; the entire community needs to be\nincluded in planning what is needed.\nOn the call for question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07 -402 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding Section 2-19 (Youth Advisory Commission) to Article\nII (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter II (Administration) ,\nEstablishing a Youth Advisory Commission and Prescribing Membership\nand Duties of Said Commission. Introduced.\nThe Recreation and Park Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the administration, operation and\nstaffing would be absorbed in the Recreation and Park Department\nbudget i inquired how much time would be devoted to support the\nCommission.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the start up time would\nbe more significant; stated the initial phase could require ten to\nfifteen hours per week; the hours would decrease to approximately\nfive hours per week once everything is up and running.\nRegular Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam inquired how much is estimated for a full time\nemployee.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded fifteen hours per week\nwould equate to half of a full time employee and would cost\napproximately $35,000 to $40,000 per year.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nProponents (In favor of the ordinance) : Cecilia Martinex, HOME\nProject; Audrey Lord-Hausman, Alameda Youth Collaborative; Antonio\nJimenez, HOME Project Rachel Reed, Alameda Point Collaborative;\nMorgan Turner, Alternatives in Action (AIA) ; Patricia Murillo, AIA;\nFranklin Hysten, AIA; Alia Sydney Thomas, AIA; Michael John Torrey,\nAlameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated the language should state that high school age\nstudents should live and be students in Alameda and that high\nschool graduates should live in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the language should be \"and/or\"\nbecause there are residents who live in Alameda but go to high\nschool elsewhere, and there are students in Alameda schools who are\nnot residents.\nVice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Youth Commission should provide input on\nthe type of support needed and ways to partner to secure funding\nfor different policy issues; stated her motion includes the\nmodifications to 2-19.3 on the Qualifications that states that a\npotential commissioner must be a resident of Alameda and/or attend\na school within the City.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council\nneeds to give specific direction on some of the initial activity.\nMayor Johnson stated a joint meeting could be scheduled.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Recreation and Park\nDepartment needs to advise Council if more resources are needed.\nRegular Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson thanked the Recreation and Park Department, Ms. Lord-\nHausman, and the Youth Collaborative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated youth outreach was not successful with\nthe Community Reuse Plan for Alameda Point because there was not an\norganized body that could speak for the youth; the Youth Commission\nwould provide a voice.\nOn the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(*07-403) Ordinance No. 2969, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute a Lease of Vacant Properties at 2300 Alameda Avenue, 2304\nAlameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street with Thompson Properties\n(Lessor) for a City Parking Lot. Finally passed.\n(*07-404) Ordinance No. 2970, \"Amending the Community Improvement\nPlan for the West End Community Improvement Project to Extend\nCertain Plan Time Limitations by Two Years Pursuant to Senate Bill\n1096. \" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-405 - ) Resolution No. 14142, \"Supporting a Diplomatic Approach\nto Ending the Iraq War and Bringing Our Troops Home. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the resolution was discussed on\nJuly 3, 2007; tonight's resolution includes additional wording at\nthe advice of Mayor Johnson and Vice Mayor Tam.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nProponents (In favor of resolution) : Carl Halpern, Alameda Pease\nNetwork; Karen Green, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Pat\nFlores, Alameda; Noel Folsom, Alameda; Fern Kruger, Alameda Pease\nNetwork; Paul Owens, Alameda; Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda Pease Network;\nDorothy Kakumoto, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ana Rojas,\nAlameda; Bonnie Bone, Alameda; Debra Arbuckle, Alameda; Susan\nSperry, Code Pink; Scott Corkins, Alameda: Paula Rainey, Alameda;\nAllen Michaan, Alameda; Susan Battaglia, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor or resolution) : Ed Abbey, Alameda, Richard\nW. Rutter, Alameda; Robert Wood, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the meeting.\nRegular Meeting\n7\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated that she supports the resolution. the Council\nhas a responsibility to speak on behalf of the community; Alameda\nshould add its voice to the chorus of the nation by asking federal\nleaders to bring back federal dollars being spent on the war, bring\nback precious resources in Iraq, and provide the best possible care\nto veterans upon their return.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the\nresolution does not just address the situation with the National\nGuard leaving the City vulnerable in case of a disaster the\nresolution also addresses the issue of the economic hardship that\nthe entire country will face as the bill comes due; federal funds\nare tax dollars; the war is the wrong war at the wrong time the\nwar is costing Alameda directly; he does not want to look back in\nten to twenty years and say that Alameda sat and did nothing; he\nhas heard that Alameda will become a City like Berkeley Council\npassed a resolution in 2003 to urge a diplomatic approach to\nresolving the issue in Iraq before the country went to war; Alameda\ndid not turn into Berkeley the resolution would carry more weight\nthan Berkeley with the congressional delegation; read a portion of\nthe resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the first year of the Iraq War had\nthe feeling of the Vietnam War the voters made a loud statement to\nelected officials last year; Congress has changed; critical parts\nhave been added to the current resolution; Vietnam War veterans\nwere treated tragically; Alameda could have an opportunity to\nprovide former Coast Guard housing to returning veterans and their\nfamilies; he hopes the Hospital Board and Board of Education step\nforward; withdrawal has a draw down period which takes a while;\nsteps need to be taken to move forward.\nMayor Johnson stated that now is the time for Alameda to weigh in\non the issue; the soldiers are from Alameda's community; the money\ncomes from Alameda taxpayers for the war; Alameda has a\nresponsibility to express its position on the war; the resolution\nis very well stated; government needs to step up and support the\ntroops and returning veterans; she supports the resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the war affects Alameda; one of\nthe country's proudest traditions is the right to speak out against\nwhat government is doing from a grassroots position; supporting the\nresolution will send a message to people in power that it is time\nRegular Meeting\n8\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 9, "text": "to change the course.\nOn the call of the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07 -406 - ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of a Planning Board\ndenial of Use Permit UP06-0010 to extend the hours of operation for\nfuel sales at the Alameda Valero Gas Station located at 1310\nCentral Avenue within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning\nDistrict. Appellant: L. Zektser and N. Saidian.\nThe Planner III gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Use Permit was for the auto\nrepair; inquired whether the need for the Use Permit would go away\nif the auto repair goes away.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Use Permit was for auto\nrepair and restrictions on hours of operation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents ( In favor or Appeal) : Del Blaylock, Alameda; Albert\nVierra, San Leandro; Hadi Monsef, Alameda Susan Battaglia,\nAlameda; Charles Dempsy, Alameda; Karen Green, Alameda; Leslie\nFishbach, Alameda; David Bringman, Pastor of Trinity Lutheran\nChurch; Martin Collins, Trinity Lutheran Church; Eric Scheuermann,\nAlameda; Joseph Zadick, Appellent (submitted handout) ; Allen\nMichaan, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Philip Gravem, Alameda; Tim\nUnderwood, Alameda; Gordon Newell, Alameda; Patricia Kinzel,\nAlameda; Mariusz Krubnik, Alameda; Donna Gravem, Alameda; Dorota\nKrubnik, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson requested that staff review the timing of the signals\nat the intersection; stated the requested hours are reasonable; the\nowners are offering to close the repair shop on Saturdays the\ntrade is reasonable; parking is made available to people on\nSundays; the gas station has a service component which was lost\nwith the closing of the Weber Chevron gas station on Otis Drive.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls a discussion\nregarding Public Works and CalTrans working together with Franklin\nRegular Meeting\n9\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 10, "text": "School on a Safe Routes to School; inquired whether said issue\naffects the intersection.\nThe Community Development Program Manager responded the\nintersection upgrade is at Paru Street and Encinal Avenue near\nJay's Coffee Shop.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the Planning Board denied the extension\nof hours because the additional hours would increase by 38%\ninquired whether Council has the discretion to decide how many\nhours are too much.\nThe City Attorney responded the question of whether a use is\nexpanded is a factual question first; a non-conforming use cannot\nbe expanded once a factual determination has been reached that\nthere is an expansion of use.\nMayor Johnson stated that the question is whether a change is an\nexpansion of use; there is a balance if the owners close the auto\nrepair in exchange for additional gas station hours.\nThe City Attorney stated the request can be granted if a factual\ndetermination is made that there is no net increase or net\nexpansion; the Municipal Code states that non-conforming uses\ncannot be expanded.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a mini mart or increased square\nfootage would be an expansion; inquired whether the Municipal Code\ndistinguishes between expansion and intensification of an existing\nuse within a Use Permit.\nThe City Attorney responded there is no express distinction in the\nMunicipal Code; stated a mini mart or increased square footage\nwould be prohibited; the Planning Board made a factual\ndetermination that the additional hours would result in an increase\nin use.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a new condition is the Applicant':\nintent to reduce the sale of diesel.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated in 1974 the property was rezoned to R-\n4; the gas station operated as a gas station with no restrictions\non hours; the owners wanted to do repair services in 1992; a Use\nPermit was required; inquired why the Appellants would still need a\nUse Permit if the auto repair is removed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded unlimited hours of\nRegular Meeting\n10\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 11, "text": "operation would be an expansion of use.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that auto repair is a different use.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that restrictions were enacted [or put\nin place] because the auto repair service was considered to be\nnoisier and more intensive.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that equations have changed drastically\nwith gas stations; additional hours would be beneficial to the\nbusiness; the gas station has grown.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the gas station had no\nrepair service between 1974 and 1992.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded he did not know .\nCounci Matarrese stated business conditions have changed; he\nwould be concerned if the gas station closed; inquired whether\ndiesel sales would be eliminated; further inquired how many diesel\npumps are at the station.\nMayor Johnson stated the Appellants would not have been given a Use\nPermit if the gas station were not a permitted use in R-4.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated all gas stations in Alameda\nhave Use Permits.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese inquiry, the Appellant\nresponded the gas station has four diesel pumps; stated all four\npumps would be eliminated.\nCouncil lmember deHaan inquired whether the diesel pumps have been a\nmajor volume of the gas station's business, to which the Appellant\nresponded the diesel pumps provide approximately 20% of the\nbusiness.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how often trucks come in to fill the\ndiesel pumps.\nThe Appellant responded the same trucks fill the pumps for gas and\ndiesel.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the likelihood of the gas\nstation becoming a discount gas station.\nThe Appellant responded the gas station is already a discount\nRegular Meeting\n11\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 12, "text": "station because gas prices are less.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether volume is important, to which\nthe Appellant responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that Use Permits run with the land,\nnot the operator; the current owners took over the gas station and\nasked for an extension of hours when she was on the Planning Board;\nthe previous owner caused a lot of problems for the neighborhood ;\nthe Use Permit was denied because the Planning Board thought that\nthe current owners had not proven themselves yet; the owners\nrequested an extension of hours three years later the neighborhood\ncomplained: the current owners have established a good record for\nkeeping the place clean and controlling noise; the Planning Board\nvoted to extend the hours and were overturned on appeal by the City\nCouncil she has a lot of sympathy for the owners; the owners could\ndecide to sell the business; she might be more sympathetic to\nextend the hours if there was a review period.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether Council could grant the\nadditional hours with a condition that the Use Permit could be\nrevoked if there was abuse.\nThe City Attorney responded some unwanted burdens could be drafted\ninto the conditions; stated a trail period could be established.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes Councilmember Matarrese':\nsuggestion [revoking the Use Permit if abused occurs]\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the current owners have been under a\ntrial period; neighborhood impacts of extending the hours are\nunknown; the matter should be reviewed after a period of time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council could require a review in\nsix months and also provide a clause that would allow Council to\nhave the ability to revoke the Use Permit if abuse occurs.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the condition of the\nintersection.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded he does not know the Level\nof Service stated the intersection is not critical.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the intersection is very accident\nprone.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated problems at the intersection\nRegular Meeting\n12\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 13, "text": "are not due to congestion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have the Public\nWorks Department and transportation specialists review the issue;\nadditional hours might create an impact at the intersection and\nshould be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the owners are proposing to eliminate\nfour diesel pumps and auto repair service hours on Saturdays; a\nsix-month review is needed in addition to reviewing the traffic\nimpact at the intersection; the Use Permit should include language\nregarding revocation upon abuse of conditions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that latitude is needed if owners\nchange he would be very concerned if ownership changed to a\ncompany owned gas station that was dedicated to high volume.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated traffic impacts should also be\nincluded.\nMayor Johnson stated that traffic impacts could be covered in the\ncondition for revocation; the site is not large enough to\naccommodate a lot of pumps.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the extension of\nhours with the condition that there will be a six-month evaluation\nperiod to address traffic and operational impacts and that Council\nhas the ability to revoke the Use Permit if conditions are abused\nor neighborhood deterioration occurs, regardless of the owner.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the goal to get back\nto residential zoning is important.\nThe City Attorney stated a resolution would be drafted that\nreflects Council's action tonight said resolution would be brought\nback to Council as a consent item.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the resolution include\nlanguage that the removal of four diesel pumps constitutes a\ndifferent condition than what the Planning Board evaluated.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the resolution should contain language\nnoting that the repair activity is light.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the resolution should have\na\nRegular Meeting\n13\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 14, "text": "revocation clause that states that the Use Permit can be revoked if\nthere is abuse or deterioration.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the issue would not go away as long\nas there is a gas station with a non-conforming use in a\nresidential zone, which is the burden of having neighborhood\ncommercial districts.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council would not allow a gas station to\nbe developed if the site was empty; Alameda is an old City that\nneeds to deal with adjacent residential and business areas.\n(07-407) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Various Sections of Chapter II (Administration) ,\nto Address the Transportation Commission's Purpose and Authority\nRepealing and Amending Various Sections of Chapter VIII (Traffic,\nMotor Vehicles and Alternative Transportation Modes) and Chapter\nXII (Designated Parking) to Reassign the Powers and Duties of the\n\"Technical Transportation Team\" to the Public Works Director and\nthe Chief of Police, and Also Designate the Transportation\nCommission as the Initial Hearing Body for the Administration of\nOperational Issues Associated with All City Transportation.\nContinued to October 2, 2007.\n(07 - 408 ) Recommendation to authorize government delegation to\nWuxi , China to attend Sister City forum and designate the Mayor or\nother members of the City Council to lead the delegation.\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nCynthia Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board [SSHRB]\nPresident, provided the itinerary and information regarding the\nprocess for attending the trip.\nStewart Chen, SSHRB Sister City Work Group Chair, stated the trip\nwould provide a good opportunity to showcase Alameda.\nSusan Battaglia, Alameda, inquired whether the City would be paying\nfor the trip, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda has sister cities in Sweden and Japan\nand a Friendship City in El Salvador.\nRegular Meeting\n14\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired what other delegations would be\nparticipating, to which Mr. Chen responded he would provide a list.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated the recommendation\nis to accept the invitation and allow the SSHRB to determine the\nofficial delegation and permit the SSHRB to finalize the trip\ndetails.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the invitation\nand authorizing the SSHRB to determine the delegation.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to\naccept the invitation to exempt the cost of the trip from being\nsubject to disclosure under the Fair Political Practices\nCommission.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated some of the\ntrip related costs are being funded by the Wuxi government ;\nattendees would not need to claim the trip costs on the Form 700 as\nlong as Council takes an official action to accept the invitation\nand takes some action to identify who would attend.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-409) Councilmember deHaan stated that more than 800 units are\nbeing built at the Gateway Project on the Oakland side of the\nestuary near the Park Street corridor; most of Alameda's\nintersections are at F condition during peak hours; said build out\nneeds to be addressed.\n(\n(07-410) Mayor Johnson stated that Vice Mayor Tam requested a\nCharter review at the last Council meeting; requested that a\nCouncil sub-committee be formed and appointments be brought back\nfor consideration at the next Council meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a Charter review is most\nappropriately directed to the City Attorney; suggested that said\nmatter be assigned to the City Attorney and City Clerk.\nRegular Meeting\n15\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated that she requested staff to come back with\nguidelines and parameters for forming a Charter Review Committee.\nThe City Attorney stated a memo is being drafted and could be\nprovided as a staff report for the next agenda.\n(07-411) Councilmember Matarrese requested clarification on the\nStrategic Planning and Prioritization Project; stated he is unclear\non the consultant's scope of work and cost; requested a report from\nthe City Manager; Council should review and discuss the report\nbefore the first workshop, which is tentatively scheduled for\nSeptember 11; he would like the matter placed on the September 4\nCouncil meeting agenda.\nThe City Manager stated the matter would be placed on the Council\nagenda prior to the workshop.\n(07-412 ) louncilmember Matarrese stated that he attended a State\nSenate Committee hearing on water transportation; the Ferry\nServices Manager also attended; handouts were provided the Ferry\nServices Manager will be providing a report to Council on\ndeliberations of the meeting the ferries would not be damaged by a\nbig earthquake; he would like to revisit the discussion held a year\nago regarding funds that are accessible to the Water Transportation\nAuthority, but not the City.\nThe City Manager stated staff is in the process of providing a\nreport on the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\n(07 - 413 ) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 11:43 p.m. in a moment of silence for Vice\nMayor Tam's father, Thay Tam.\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 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-08-21", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -AUGUST 21, 2007- - -6:30 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-392) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54953.9) i Name of Case: Harbor Bay Isle Associates V. City of\nAlameda.\n(07-393) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.91 Number of cases One.\nFollowing the closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,\nCouncil gave direction to Legal Counsel and authorized budget for\ndefense; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council gave settlement\ndirection to Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nAugust 21, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf"}