{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 6, 2007--7:30P.M. -\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:05\np.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(07-517) Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment\n[paragraph no. 07-518] would be addressed first.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-518) Resolution No. 14154, \"Appointing Peter Y. Horikoshi as a\nMember of the Civil Service Board. Adopted; and\n(07-518A) - Resolution No. 14155, \"Appointing Jeff Wood as a Member\nof the Golf Commission. Adopted.\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. Horikoshi and Mr. Wood.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City\nCouncil and Community Improvement Commission Meeting at 8:09 p.m.\nand reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:15 p.m.\n***\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(07-519) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public hearing to\nconsider an appeal of the Planning Board's decision to approve the\nFirst Addendum [paragraph no. 07-528] was removed from the agenda\ndue to the Appellant withdrawing the appeal.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 2, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 07-520] and\nIntroduction of Ordinance [paragraph no. 07-523] were removed from\nthe Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n(07-520) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on October 16, 2007.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the October 9 Closed Session\nminutes do not have the disposition of the voting.\nThe City Attorney stated said minutes report out the Mayor's\nstatement on the action taken; normally, votes are not reported;\nthe vote is public record information; the vote can be added.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the vote be added to the\nminutes.\nThe City Clerk noted that the October 9 minutes were previously\napproved on October 16.\nThe City Attorney noted that the vote could be reflected in the\nOctober 16 Closed Session minutes when the October 9 announcement\nwas made.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes with adding the\nOctober 9 Closed Session vote to the October 16 Closed Session\nminutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested Closed Session votes be represented\nin the Minutes.\n(\n*07-521) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,700,971.35\n( *07-522 - ) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 5 to the Alameda\nCounty Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to assign\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 3, "text": "the rights and obligations of the Regents of the University of\nCalifornia to Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. Accepted.\n(07-523) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing\nArticle I (Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and\nTechnical Codes) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I\n(Uniform Codes Relating to Building, Housing and Technical Codes)\nto Adopt the 2007 California Building Code, the 2007 California\nHistorical Building Code, the 2007 California Electrical Code, the\n2007 California Plumbing Code, the 2007 California Mechanical Code,\nthe 2007 California Energy Code, the 1997 Uniform Housing Code, and\nthe 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous\nBuildings, and by Amending Chapter XV (Fire Prevention) by\nRepealing Section 15-1 in Its Entirety and by Adding a New Section\n15-1 - to Adopt the 2007 Edition of the California Fire Code.\nIntroduced.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what is the City's stance on monitoring\nsoft story buildings, provisions of enforcement, and eventual phase\nout because of seismic integrity.\nThe Building Official responded staff is working on an ordinance\naddressing soft story buildings and providing standards for\nretrofitting and the option to make it mandatory or voluntary.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether said ordinance would be in addition\nto tonight's ordinance, to which the Building Official responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *07-524) Ordinance No. 2974, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Repealing and Amending Various Sections of Article I (Parking\nLots) and Article II (On Street Parking Meter Zones) of Chapter XII\n(Designated Parking) and Adding a Definition Section (Section 12-0)\nApplicable to All Articles to Provide for the Regulation of Public\nParking Surface Lots and Parking Structures Administered by the\nCity of Alameda. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-525) Public Hearing to consider adopting Amendment #1 to\nFiscal Year 2007-2008 Community Development Block Grant Action\nPlan, and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 4, "text": "district.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether some of the money could be\nused for more bike racks or bus shelters which would encourage\npeople to get out of cars.\nThe Development Services Director responded that she would have to\ndefer the question to the City Attorney; stated she would assume\nthat the money could used in any way -\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore suggested broadening the enabling language so\nthat there would be an opportunity to use the funds for other\nthings.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the business\ncommunity was told that they would have some input as to how the\nincremental funds would be spent.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the language should be broadened\nto allow input from the business community; the matter would not\nhave to be revisited again if there is a consensus to install more\nbike racks or shelters on Park Street.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the money could be used\nfor something else.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated an ordinance\ncovers the parking meter fund uses and has almost every imaginable\nuse related to parking; Council has the legal ability to amend the\nordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why the ordinance is coming to\nCouncil now and then going back to the Transportation Commission\nand Economic Development Commission.\nThe Development Services Director responded the entire parking\nstudy would go back to the Transportation Commission; stated the\nitem was extracted out because it can be done without the analysis\nof other parking district issues which analyze capacity, etc.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why the issue is coming to Council\nnow if the study has not been finalized.\nThe Development Services Director responded the parking study is\nfalling behind; stated adjusting all of the meter heads will take\nmany weeks; the meters need to be ready when the garage opens.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Transportation\nCommission or Economic Development Commission have a recommendation\nat this time.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated\nthat she is not sure whether the Transportation Commission has\njurisdiction over setting rates.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the increase would provide enough\nincentive to impact repeat offenders.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 6, "text": "The Development Services Director responded staff has made the\ninformation available; stated enforcement will increase.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether another ticket is issued after the\nfirst ticket, to which the Development Services Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is an extra fine for a second\nticket.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded a second ticket can be issued after\ntwenty-four hours.\nMayor Johnson stated that the time for the second issuance needs to\nbe changed; credit card meters should be reviewed; changing parking\nto one hour in premium areas could be considered after the\nsituation has been monitored.\nThe Development Services Director stated the whole parking issue is\nan experiment; things will need to be tried and tweaked if\nnecessary.\nRichard Neveln, Alameda, stated the issue belongs in front of the\nTransportation Commission first; revenues can be raised through\nstricter enforcement of illegal left turns.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he supports the staff\nrecommendation; the timeline needs to be met in connection with the\nopening of the parking structure; bike racks are needed; the City\nof Oakland has decimated its bike parking inventory by going to the\ncomputerized meters; he hopes that bicycle parking will be provided\nat necessary levels.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the\nPSBA Board voted overwhelmingly to support the staff\nrecommendation; the proposed increase needs to be in conjunction\nwith the opening of the garage he has had numerous conversations\nwith repeat offenders; repeat offenders will be reported to the two\nnew parking technicians and would be ticketed; PSBA looks forward\nto working with Council on determining how the additional revenue\nwould be spent.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Alameda Avenue and Oak\nStreet parking lots are full, to which Mr. Ratto responded there is\none vacancy.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated redevelopment funds from all over the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 7, "text": "City were used for the parking structure; there might be a problem\nin separating the additional funds; the healthy way to handle the\nissue would be to put the money into the existing fund.\nMayor Johnson stated that Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember Gilmore\naddressed the use of existing provions.\nThe City Attorney stated the parking meter fund is not restricted\nby the area nor does the proposed resolution purport to restrict\nany part of the funds to any area.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed resolution addresses\nhow the money might be used, not where the money is used.\nThe City Attorney responded the proposed resolution sets the fee;\nthe use of the parking fund is controlled by ordinance, which is\nvery broad.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with raising\nparking violation penalties; timing should allow input and\nrecommendations from the Economic Development Commission.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the Public Works\nDepartment advises that it will take four to six weeks to change\nout the meter heads.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not feel the issue is at a level\nfor the Economic Development Commission's consideration; parking\nfees are low and should have been changed years ago; parking fees\nshould be adjusted on an ongoing basis; Council should move forward\non the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Transportation\nCommission has the authority to raise parking fees or penalties, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether said issues would ever\nnormally go to the Transportation Commission, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Page 5 of the staff report states\nthat approximately $180,992 will be used solely on parking and\nstreet improvements within the Park Street Business District with\nCouncil's approval.\nMayor Johnson stated the resolution does not include said language;\nCouncil can clarify that the money would be put into a fund under\nthe current ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 8, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese stated the matter would have been reviewed\nby the Economic Development Commission under the normal processi\nthe staff reports states that the incremental additional revenue\nwill be spent within the Park Street Business District, which is\nnot reflected in the resolution; the resolution does not have an\neffective date and is like a rough draft.\nThe City Attorney stated resolutions usually do not have an\neffective date; lead time is needed to change out the meter heads ;\nan additional action would be needed to earmark the increment.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether fund use was an important\nfactor for PSBA to support the fee increase, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether PSBA would support the\nincrease without said condition, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded she would need to go back and ask.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $900,000 of parking meter\nfunds was put into the parking structure.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated\nthere is a commitment for $250,000 per year for debt service; a\nlump sum was not taken.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think that designating meter\nrevenue to certain areas should be considered; a precedent should\nnot be set.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the rate increase would be confined\nto the area between Lincoln Avenue and Encinal Avenue, to which the\nDevelopment Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether rate increases would be reviewed\nfor other areas once the Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) study is\ncomplete.\nThe Development Services Director responded that she is not sure\nwhether the WSA study would recommend parking fee increases\nanywhere else; stated WSA has not identified any other high demand\nareas ; parking problems arise over time as parking demand\nincreases.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she sees nothing wrong with using\nthe incremental revenue generated from raising the parking fees in\nthe Park Street Business District and spending the money in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 9, "text": "Park Street Business District; parking would not be in demand if\nsaid district was not successful; the Park Street District is\ngenerating an income stream to help with the parking issues; the\nsame logic would apply in the event that the Webster Street\nDistrict faced the same parking demands in the future.\nMayor Johnson suggested separating out the issue and considering\nwhat to do with the revenue at a later point if Council agrees to\nmove forward with the suggested changes in the meter fees.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she feels that business owners\nsupported the increase because the revenue would go back into the\nDistrict; PSBA needs to be advised if this is not the case.\nMayor Johnson stated the meter rates should be changed even if PSBA\nsaid that the meter rates should not be changed.\nMr. Ratto stated PSBA was told about the incremental revenue being\nkept in the Park Street District; he speculates that the vote would\nnot have been 7 to 2 if said issue was not the plan; however, the\nPSBA Board probably still would have approved the plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is curious to know what the\nparking study shows in final form; rates have not been raised since\n1994; parking space costs and meter maintenance have not gone down;\ninquired whether anyone looked into the possibility of raising the\nrate across the City and keeping the garage the same; raising rates\nversus revenue spending are separate issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that everyone agrees that rates need to\nbe raised because of comparisons with other cities; he feels that\nrates should be raised across the board.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested reviewing the parking study to\nsee if the study examines raising the rates across the City;\ndecoupling the increase from the expenditure is a good idea because\nthe City already has an ordinance that addresses how parking meter\nrevenue is expended.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the preliminary work\ndone by WSA talks about demand areas; other areas throughout the\nCity do not have the same meter demands as Park Street; the Park\nStreet District parking meter rates are established at $1.00; said\nrate is in the ordinance but has not been implemented.\nThe City Attorney stated the parking meter rate was included with\nthe fees for the Master Fee Resolution in the past the Master Fee\nresolution has an incremental increase which makes no sense with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 10, "text": "the parking rate; the meter schedule, which is different from what\nwas adopted in the resolution, may state $1.00 but is not what the\nmeters reflect and does not reflect the action taken by Council;\nthe proposed resolution separates the parking meters from the\nMaster Fee Resolution.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has no problem with bringing\nsomething back to raise meter rates throughout the City; the garage\nrates should start out at a lower rate and for a longer period of\ntime to encourage long-term users to park in the parking structure;\nother cities have shorter term parking in high priority areas;\ngarage structure rates will be easy to adjust to because there are\nno individual meters; the rates can be changed later if necessary.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the resolution does not address how and\nwhere the funds would be expended and would be governed by the\nexisting ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there\nwould be future discussion on how the funds would be expended and\nwhether or not the funds should be designated for Park Street.\nThe City Manager responded the matter would be addressed in the\nbudget discussion, which could include input from PSBA.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested input from the Boards and\nCommissions identified in the report when the overall parking study\nis completed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he feels a flat rate charge\nthroughout the City would be better.\nMayor Johnson stated the Webster Street District might be a concern\nbecause said District is not as robust as the Park Street District;\nthe matter needs to be reviewed; directed staff to review raising\nmeter rates throughout the City.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-527) Resolution No. 14157, \"To Increase Civil Penalties for\nParking Violations. Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 11, "text": "[Note: Refer to Resolution to Increase On-Street Parking Meter\nRates [paragraph no. 07-526] for Council discussion.\nRichard Neveln, Alameda, stated the increase changes from parking\nregulation into revenue generation and will keep people of lower\neconomic status from going to Park Street.\nMayor Johnson stated increased fines would be used to recover\ncosts, not generate revenue.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, stated the PSBA Board supports the increase;\nthere has been a lack of resources in enforcement ; raising meter\nrates and fines as well as having parking enforcement in the\ndistrict Monday through Saturday should be effective.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed public transit.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he is in favor of increasing\nparking fines; it is the appropriate time to approve the increase.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam noted the median rate for parking\nin a disabled zone is $275; she would like the rate increased from\n$250 to $275.\nCouncilmembers Gilmore and deHaan agreed to amend the motion to\nchange the fine for parking in a disabled zone to $275.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-528) Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning\nBoard's decision to approve the First Addendum to the Catellus\nAlameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Report, the revised Waterfront Promenade\nDevelopment Plan, and the second amendment to the Site-wide Master\nLandscape Plan; and adoption of related resolution. Withdrawn at\nthe Appellant's request.\n(07-529) Public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning\nBoard's decision to approve Design Review DR07-0003 - at Tract 7884\n(Alameda Landing Retail Center) ; and\n(07-529A) Resolution No. 14158, \" Upholding the Planning Board\nApproval of Design Review, DR07-0003, at Tract 7884 (Retail\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 12, "text": "raised crosswalk would force traffic to slow down.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that a speed table would\ncause cars to slow.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the resolution includes new\nlanguage regarding the right turn lane addressed in [Planning\nBoard] Condition 6.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 13, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded in order to eliminate the\nopen checkbook problem, staff is recommending adding back the\nunderlined language in the resolution, which was removed by the\nPlanning Board; stated in addition to said language, the following\nnew sentence should be added at the end of the condition: \"Not\nwithstanding the above, if a right turn lane is provided as part of\nthe Stargell Extension Project, this condition shall no longer be\nin effect.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired who would pay for the Stargell\nextension.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the project is a joint\neffort between Catellus and the City further stated staff and the\nadjacent property owner are discussing trading a remnant piece of\nland at the east side of her property for the land needed to create\na right turn pocket; creating the right turn would guarantee access\nto her property; everything in the condition would stand if the\nplan does not work; the only additional cost would be for 8 feet of\nasphalt if the land swap is done.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Vice Mayor Tam's suggestion\nto raise crosswalks would create disabled access issues, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the\nraising would be ADA compliant.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to\nhave the walkway due to the problems at Towne Center, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking plan was\nproblematic or whether Catellus was simply concerned about losing\nparking spaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the loss of parking is\nalways a concern for retailers; stated the total loss in the\nPlanning Board plan was not astronomical; the real concern was\ncirculation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether having a penetration every\nother aisle was considered, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded said suggestion is another iteration that could be\nexplored.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board felt\nstrongly about the plan.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board was\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 14, "text": "never provided with the compromise plan; stated the matter could be\nremanded back to the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board requested\nsidewalks on both sides, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether issue is loss of parking.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Master Plan established\nthe maximum amount of parking; stated all plans are well within the\nMaster Plan.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nIn favor of remanding to the Planning Board Jon Spangler, Alameda;\nand Karen Bey, Alameda.\nAidan Berry, Catellus, outlined the project; stated Catellus\nconcurs with the staff recommendations; the appeal was filed\nwithout animosity because philosophical differences were reached;\nCatellus likes the suggestion to create raised crosswalks and will\ndiscuss the matter with its engineers; Catellus supports taking the\nparking plan back to the Planning Board.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of: 1) sending the\ncompromise plan back to the Planning Board for review; 2)\n[\nadoption of the resolution) incorporating staff recommendations 1\nand 2 regarding the Master Demolition, Grading, Infrastructure and\nPhasing Plan (MDGIP) and the driveway; and 3) adding additional\nlanguage [to the resolution] to incorporate the language regarding\nthe Stargell driveway right-hand turn condition.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the entire matter should be\nremanded to the Planning Board since the matter has evolved.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there is new information\nregarding the plan, which is why staff thought the matter should be\nremanded to the Planning Board; stated there is not new information\non the MDGIP and driveway.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board was\nconcerned about said two items [MDGIP and driveway]\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Board's concern was\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 15, "text": "very small regarding the MDGIP; the Board did not want the driveway\nclosed; the additional sentence addresses how to resolve the issue.\nVice Mayor Tam requested clarification on remanding the matter to\nthe Planning Board.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the site plan would be\nremanded with direction to reconsider the decision in light of the\nnew information.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether it might not be procedurally correct\nto send the other two items [MDGIP and driveway ] back to the\nPlanning Board.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the matters could be sent\nback.\nMayor Johnson stated taking the two items off the table might make\nsense.\nCouncilmember Matarrese restated the motion approval of staff\nrecommendations 1 and 2 [regarding the MDGIP and driveway and\nsending site plan 4 back to the Planning Board for review, comment\nand approval.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion\nincluded the additional sentence regarding the right turn lane, to\nwhich Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion included\ndirection to have the Planning Board review raised crosswalks, to\nwhich Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he has seen the project design and\nhas concerns regarding the size and mass of Buildings A and B; the\nPlanning Board wants to take a second look at the matter; Building\nA is 67 feet tall and only houses one story.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said matter is part of the agenda\nitem and should be discussed.\nThe City Attorney stated the agenda item is specific to the appeal\nand the three items in the appeal, which should be the Council' S\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 16, "text": "focus.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be addressed by\nthe Planning Board; the Council should receive copies of the\ndesign, but the Planning Board should finish its job; the matter\ncan be called for review if Councilmembers object to the outcome.\nMayor Johnson concurred; stated the Council should receive copies,\nbut should not discuss something that is still at the Planning\nBoard level.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether design review has been done.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\ndesign review was approved with the condition that the two\nbuildings mentioned be further refined; height was a specific\nissue.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would address the matter under\nCouncil Communications.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-530) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, provided a newspaper\narticle; discussed emergency alerts.\n(07-531) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed raising the standards for\nearthquakes.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-532) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has received\ncomplaints regarding not having public restroom access at Alameda\nPower & Telecom; requested staff to review the matter.\n(07-533) Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the\nelevator at Independence Plaza.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated an Off Agenda Report was\ndistributed today.\n(07-534) Councilmember deHaan stated the public should be\npermitted to use the restroom facility on the second floor at AP&T.\n(07-535) Councilmember deHaan stated that he comments on size and\nmass of structures at Alameda Landing.\nMayor Johnson stated that she wanted to make sure that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmembers could comment on issues that are before the Planning\nBoard; she does not want to get in trouble with the legal process.\nThe City Attorney stated there could be a perception of bias if\nCouncilmembers comment on something that is going to be under the\njurisdiction of an advisory group, such as the Planning Board,\nwhich could later come to Council either as an appeal or Call for\nReview; the matter is an appropriate item to discuss during Council\nCommunications.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council talked about environmentally\nsound buildings that would be efficient and more sustainable; he is\nconcerned with buildings that have large volumes inside,\nparticularly big boxes; square footage within buildings should be\nreviewed; there are concerns with having buildings that are sixty-\nfive feet tall for a single story building; Council needs to take a\nposition on said issues; the City has an ordinance that prohibits\nbillboards he hopes that the City refrains from mock billboards\nCouncil should do a review before design and mass situations\ndevelop.\nADJOURNMENT\n(07-536) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 10:34 p.m. in memory of Ichinkhorloc\nBayarsaikhan.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 6, 2007--6:00P.M. -\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 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(07-512) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations:\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units.\n(07-513) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\na briefing on the procedures and status of negotiations with public\nsafety bargaining units; no action was taken; regarding Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from its Legal Counsel on the matter of\npotential litigation; no action was taken.\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\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING\nAUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 6, 2007- -7:25 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.\nCommissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Board Members deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Commissioner\nTorrey, and Mayor/Chail Johnson - 6.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Torrey moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 6. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n( *HABOC) Minutes of the Special Board of Commissioners meeting held\nSeptember 4, 2007. Approved.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(07-514) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager or her\ndesignee to accept a Deed of Release of Restrictions from the\nNational Park Service for Neptune Park and a Declaration of\nRestrictions for a new City-owned parcel located near Towata Park\nand to enter into a license agreement with the Housing Authority to\nprovide parking for Independence Plaza residents on an 11,575\nsquare foot tract of land on Neptune Park.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she would recuse\nherself from the item because of the possible appearance of bias.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired what is the parking need.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the parking need\nis for the Independent Plaza Senior Complex as well as the Housing\nAuthority office; stated the Senior Complex requires .75 parking\nspaces per unit; the Complex has 186 units; the office parking need\nhas a formula and is also left to the judgment of the Planning\nDirector; a total of 195 or 198 parking spaces are required; the\nproposed additional parking spaces would bring the total to 180\nspaces ; Berkeley studies have shown that low-income senior\ncomplexes can get by with .6 parking spaces per unit; experience\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\n1\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 20, "text": "has proven that more is needed.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether the combination of the\nhousing units and office space bumps up the need to .75 parking\nspaces per unit as opposed to . 6.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the additional\nparking would provide for less than .75 parking spaces per unit.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether some consideration was\ngiven to improving access from the housing units to the bus stops\nstated bus stops are gated off; further inquired whether efforts\nwere made to improve access to public transit in lieu of providing\nmore vehicle access.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded that he is not\nsure whether there was a discussion about bus stop accessi stated\nfences are in place for security purposes; the complex has gates in\nthe back, side, and front.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether seniors have easy\naccess to and from the bus stops.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded seniors have to\nwalk farther to the bus stop at the corner of Webster Street and\nAtlantic Avenue; stated seniors would need to walk through the\nparking lot if there was a gate; there is no room for sidewalks;\nanother bus stop at the front of the office is accessible.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether consideration was\ngiven to the issue in 2005.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded that he does not\nrecall any discussion regarding adding gates in order to improve\naccess to bus stops.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether consideration was\ngiven to relocating bus stops or providing easier access to\ntransit.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the negative;\nstated automobiles and parking are being discussed, not buses.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that the assumption that senior housing\nrequires less parking is not accurate.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director stated Seniors are more\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\n2\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 21, "text": "active at Independence Plaza; automobiles provide independence;\nparatransit is available; a bus from Chinatown shows up quite a\nbit.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a car-sharing program\nis available, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director\nresponded that he does not know.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the City of Berkeley has a good car\nsharing program; suggested staff look into the matter.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated the Housing Authority estimates\nthat it would cost $190,000 to build the Independence Plaza parking\nlot; inquired whether said cost would be recouped from rent\nincreases.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded funding would be\nfrom reserves; stated reserves get refunded from grants.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether parking would be free,\nto which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are\nopportunities to acquire additional park space on the West End as\nopposed to east of Park Street [near Towata Park]\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the National\nPark Service does not allow deed restriction on an existing park;\nstated the additional parcel from East Bay Municipal Utility\nDistrict (EBMUD) was not a park; the deed restriction needs to be\nplaced on non-park land.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired whether there are\nopportunities to expand an existing park on the west side.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded [West End] parks\nor property were not identified.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam inquired about the Coast Guard housing\narea, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded\nsaid area was not available at the time.\nRichard Neveln, Alameda, suggested that the matter be referred to\nthe Transportation Commission.\nKim Nicholis, Alameda, discussed parking.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\n3\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 22, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how many parking spaces\nare needed for the Housing Authority office.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded two parcels are\ninvolved; stated one parcel would add an additional twenty to\ntwenty-two parking spaces fourteen parking spaces would be needed\non the eastern portion.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the equation\nwould change to 0.6 parking spaces per tenant.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the parking\nspace would increase to 0.7 and would be less than the 0.75\nrequired in the City ordinance.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated seniors are staying in the\nworkforce longer dynamics have changed.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether some Housing Authority\nvehicles are parked off site.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded said vehicles\nare all parked on site; stated some vehicles are locked inside the\ngarage; others are parked behind the gate in a secured area.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the preference is to avoid taking away\nany green area for parking; inquired whether Housing Authority\nvehicles could be parked off site.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the fenced area\nbehind the gate is a secured area and is used for ingress and\negress for maintenance vehicles.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether additional spaces would be\nadded for Housing Authority vehicles, to which the Housing\nAuthority Executive Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether trees would be\nremoved, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether similar, mature\ntrees would be replanted, to which the Housing Authority Executive\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\n4\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 23, "text": "Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Public Works\nDepartment is comfortable with the plan.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded the matter has\nbeen discussed with the Recreation and Parks Department, not Public\nWorks.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the same issues were\ndiscussed in 2005; the City has a Vehicle Procurement Policy the\nnext step is to get a Vehicle Use Policy; the vacant lot purchased\nfrom EBMUD would be designated as a park, which is a positive stepi\nthe motion should include that the staff recommendation is accepted\nwith the provision that the City develop a Vehicle Use Policy and\nthat no more park space be taken from the site.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated that she does not think that\nthis [parking lot] is the best use of the parkland; she will not\nsupport the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion with\ndirection that the City develop a Vehicle Use Policy and that no\nmore park space be taken from the site.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Matarrese,\nCommissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Noes\n:\nCouncilmember / Commissioner Tam - 1. Abstentions: Councilmember /\nCommissioner Gilmore - 1. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore\nrecused herself from the item because of the possible appearance of\nbias ]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\n5\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 24, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 6, 2007- - -7:29 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:09 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve a\nLease with Alameda Wine Company [paragraph no. 07-045 CIC] was\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted\nare indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.\n]\n( 07-515 - CC/*07-043 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand Community Improvement Commission meeting held on October 16,\n2007. Approved.\n(*07-044 CIC) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Ampco\nParking, Inc. in the amount of $124,682 for the management and\noperation of the Civic Center parking structure. Accepted.\n(07-045 CIC) Recommendation to approve a Lease with Alameda Wine\nCompany for 2315 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda Theater.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated Section 7 of the Lease specifies how\nthe winebar would be used; she would like to add specific language\nrequiring that the winebar remain a winebar and not be allowed to\nconvert to a wine store; the Commission did not intend to have a\nthird wine store in the Park Street District the intent was to\nhave a wine bar that serves food; inquired whether the winebar\nowner has filed for licenses.\nThe Development Services Director stated the owner does not want to\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n1\nImprovement Commission\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 25, "text": "file for the licenses until the lease is approved because of the\nfees.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired what type of licenses are needed.\nThe Development Services Director responded food and beverage\nlicenses are not separate; stated the major issue would be the Use\nPermit for the exterior seating; the owner would need a full liquor\nlicense from Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) i the facility will be\nan \"over 21\" establishment.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to add language to Section 7 of the lease requiring\nthat the wine bar not be allowed to convert to a wine store.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*07-046 CIC) Recommendation to approve a Lease with BurgerMeister\nManagement, Inc. for 2319 Central Avenue in the Historic Alameda\nTheater. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(07-516 CC/07-047 CIC) Public Hearing to consider approval of a\nfirst addendum to the Alameda Landing Mixed-use Development Project\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report, first amendment to the\nDevelopment Agreement, and first amendment to the Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project to\nmodify the Public Waterfront Promenade;\n(07-516A CC) Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Addendum to the\nAlameda Landing Mixed-Use Development Project Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Report;\n(07-516B CC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of a First Amendment to a Disposition and Development\nAgreement with Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by\nMerger to Catellus Development Corporation) for the Sale and\nDevelopment of Certain Real Property at the Fleet Industrial Supply\nCenter (FISC) ;\n(07-047A CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving an Addendum to the\nSupplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Landing\nMixed-Use Development Project Authorizing the Executive Director to\nAmend the Disposition and Development Agreement with Palmtree\nAcquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus\nDevelopment Corporation) for the Sale and Development of Certain\nReal Property at the FISC; and,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n2\nImprovement Commission\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-11-06", "page": 26, "text": "(07-516C CC) Introduction of Ordinance Approving a First Amendment\nto Development Agreement DA-06-003 By and Between the City of\nAlameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation (Successor by Merger\nto Catellus Development Corporation) Continued to December\n4,\n2007.\n.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n3\nImprovement Commission\nNovember 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf"}