{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MARCH 18, 2008- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 08-114];\nrecommendation to address rent increases [paragraph no. 08-118;\nResolution Approving Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding\n[paragraph no. 08-119]; Resolution Authorizing the Execution by the\nGeneral Manager [paragraph no. 08-120]. and Introduction of\nOrdinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 08-121\nwere removed from the consent Calendar 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 - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(08-114) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting held on February 6, 2008; and the Special and Regular City\nCouncil Meetings held on March 4, 2008. Approved.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the word \"defeated\" on Page 12 of the\nRegular City Council Meeting minutes should be changed to\n\"replaced.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the minutes with noted change.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 2, "text": "(*08-115) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,004,609.80\n( *08-116) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon\nConstruction, Inc. for the first amendment to Agreement for the\nFiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of portland cement concrete sidewalk,\ncurb, gutter, driveway, and minor street patching, Phase 7, P.W.\n03-06-06. Accepted.\n(*08-117) Recommendation to approve the Proposition 1B Local\nStreets and Roads Funding Proposal for Fiscal Year 2007-2008,\nallocate $61,000 in Congestion Management Agency Transportation\nImprovement Plan Funds, and authorize the City Manager to execute\nall necessary documents. Accepted.\n(08-118) Recommendation to address rent increases and maintenance\nconcerns at 101, 123, and 127 Crolls Garden Court.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what is the status of the code violations.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded outstanding items\ninclude defective rain gutters, several hairline cracks on two\ninterior windows, and interior dry rock under the rug of one unit;\nfire code issues include patching sheetrock in the water heater\nclosets; removing storage under the stairways cleaning lint from\ndryer vents; and providing proof of five-year service on private\nfire hydrants.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether there has been any success in\ngetting the property owner to the mediation table with the tenants.\nThe Housing Development Manager responded the Rent Review Advisory\nCommittee (RRAC) met on December 3, 2007 and in January 2008 to\nreview the matter ; stated the owner did not attend either meeting\nand has not responded to the RRAC's recommendations.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the property owner was here\ntonight, to which the Housing Development Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nMandy Olson, Alameda, stated that the mold in her apartment was\nnever properly cleaned; the soft boards in public walkways have not\nbeen fixed; rain gutters are falling apart.\nWinter Ladue, Alameda, stated her heater and stove were replaced\nafter the compliance date; interior repairs have not been made; her\nunit has dry rot on the outside.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 3, "text": "Keith Ladue, Alameda, stated that he is concerned with security\nissues; a homeless person is living outside his gate; the fence is\nin disrepair.\nLeif Olson, Alameda, (submitted pictures) stated that the December\n5 rent increase is not justified; the Code Enforcement Officer\nnoted more than a dozen severe code violations; a 7% increase is\ntwice the annual rate of inflation and is excessive no\nimprovements have been made in the last three years; broken windows\nand gutters, and Unit 127 entryway are particular areas of concern.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated mold is a health and safety violation\nand is very difficult to eradicate; inquired whether the issue has\nbeen corrected.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the County addresses\nmold issues.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether mold issues are addressed on\na complaint driven basis and whether the tenant or City can notify\nthe County.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded that she did not know\nthe County's process.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people have difficulty getting\ninspections, to which the Planning and Building Director responded\nin the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether additional ordinances are necessary\nto deal with the issue.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the City has a\nProperty Standards Ordinance which addresses property upkeep.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the pictures show issues that are not\nlisted in the staff report; inquired whether staff is aware of the\nissues.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded that she has not seen\nthe pictures; stated the Code Enforcement Office will follow up on\nthe matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether other properties are having\nthe same problems.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded there are\napproximately 800 Code Enforcement cases.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 4, "text": "nuisance continues.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether separate standards could be adopted\nfor maintenance of rental properties.\nThe City Attorney responded the issue can be reviewed if there are\nrational distinctions between rental properties and owner-occupied\nproperties; a reason would be needed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the issue should be pursued\naggressively; ignoring the City should not be tolerated.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the complex has any\nvacancies, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in\nthe negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City would have some control if the\ncomplex has Section 8 tenants.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore\nregarding being aggressive with the property owner.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of authorizing the Mayor to send a\nletter to the property owner encouraging compliance with the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee's recommendations and listing fines that\nwould be imposed for code violations and health and safety issues\nraised.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the City did not\nconnect the dots between crime at the Harbor Island Apartments and\nthe condition of the units and treatment of tenants requested an\nupdate in a month regarding Section 8 voucher management and public\nsafety issues.\nVice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding\nreporting back to Council.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-119) Resolution No. 14187, \"Approving Amendment to the\nMemorandum of Understanding Between the International Brotherhood\nof Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the Period Ending\nDecember 31, 2008, to Establish Rubber Glove Educational Incentive\nPay. \" Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that approving the incentive pay is the\nright thing to do; he wants the public to understand the reasoning\nfor the incentive pay.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the City has had a hard time\nattracting Journey Lineworkers.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-120 ) Resolution No. 14188, \"Authorizing the Execution by the\nGeneral Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom of the First Amendment\nto the Power Purchase Agreement with Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC\nfor Price Increase of Delivered Power from Landfill Gas\nGeneration. Adopted.\nThe AP&T General Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson requested that the General Manager provide an\nexplanation of landfill gas generation.\nThe AP&T General Manager stated that landfill gas generation is a\nmethod in which gas that is generated from decomposing waste in a\nlandfill is captured through a network of pipes and is gathered and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 6, "text": "burned within an engine electricity is generated; the City has\nfour contracts for landfill gas.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Ameresco would look to\nAlameda and Palo Alto if unexpected cost overruns occur.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded the Contract has\nprovisions stated that he does not think a price increase would be\nallowed; the 6% satisfies the City and provides for a project that\nis under the projected wholesale market price; the developer would\nmake a profit.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Contractor only has the\noption to decide whether or not the deal is a go based upon their\nfinancial projections as opposed to the City's financial\nprojections.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded that the City could back\nout of the Contract if the price is too high.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff is satisfied with the\nContractor's due diligence; further inquired whether the Contractor\nperformed due diligence before the City entered into the Contract\nor afterwards.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded some work and evaluation\nwas done prior to entering into the Contract stated the Contractor\nfound out more after digging deeper; permitting and interconnecting\nissues were out of the Contractor's control the Bay Area Air\nQuality Board required the additional engines.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she does not want to be paying\nfor an increase because the Contractor failed to do due diligence.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor stated the Contractor performed a\ngood study; the City has worked with the Contractor three times;\nthe Contractor is in the middle of a much larger project in Half\nMoon Bay the Contractor completed the Santa Cruz project without\nany problem.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many landfill gas projects the\nCity has.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded the City has four active\nContracts; stated two generators are running and two generators are\nunder construction.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of the City's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 7, "text": "portfolio is gas, to which the General Manager responded between 4%\nand 5%.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the four Contracts are\nsuccessful.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded in the affirmative;\nstated prices are more than competitive; Contracts were entered\ninto at a time when the wholesale market was low.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is looking at other\nlandfill gas projects.\nThe Utility Planning Supervisor responded Half Moon Bay is under\nconstruction; the City will partner with Palo Alto again.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Palo Alto approved the increase, to\nwhich the General Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that Alameda and Palo Alto are on the\nforefront of innovative power production.\nThe General Manager stated that the Environmental Protection Agency\nawarded Alameda and Palo Alto with the Landfill Methane Outreach\nProgram award.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she appreciates the questions raised by\nCouncilmember Gilmore; the increase is significant and includes\nsome escalators.\nThe General Manager stated the City is still under market price;\nthe cost would be spread over twenty years.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the four landfills are\nactive.\nThe General Manager responded Half Moon Bay and Santa Cruz are\nactive; Richmond is not.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has options to\ncontinue to draw gas from the landfills.\nThe General Manager responded in the affirmative stated the\nContract is a take-and-pay Contract; the City has renewal rights.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that methane gas is worse than carbon\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 8, "text": "dioxide when the gas leaks into the air.\nOn the call for the question, by consensus, the motion carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-121) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode\nby\nRepealing Section 5-30 (Filming Activities) in Its\nEntirety, and Replacing It with A Successor Section to Article II\n(Permits) of Chapter V (Licenses and Permits) Making Changes to the\nProcedures, Regulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming\nActivities Within the City of Alameda. Introduced.\nDave Duffin, Film Commission Chair, stated the recommended changes\nwould help the permitting process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-122) - Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14189,\n\"Adopting General Plan Amendment, PLN07-0077, Amending Section 2.5\nRetail Business and Services of the Land Use Element of the City of\nAlameda General Plan. Adopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponent (In favor of resolution) : Patricia Curtin, Harsh\nDevelopment.\nNeutral Bill Smith, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Alameda Towne Center and Alameda\nLanding concerns are reflected in the staff report; inquired how\nsales leakage would be controlled through zoning and the Municipal\nCode.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Policy 2.5.k states \"pursue\nand encourage new retail development that is consistent with the\nretail policies of the General Plan and Economic Development\nStrategic Plan; primarily serves the community or addresses a high\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 9, "text": "priority local retail or service need; and will not have a\nsignificant long-term deleterious effect on existing retail areas\nand/or the local economy\"; stated staff wants to provide an\narticulated policy that supports and supplements existing retail\nareas but does not compete.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated sales leakage has not changed sales\nleakage becomes all-important. -\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that staff did not lose sight\nof sales leakage being the driving force.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Policy 2.5.b addresses revitalization\nof Alameda's historic Main Street business districts on Park Street\nand Webster Street while maintaining small-city scale and\ncharacter; inquired why the policy is silent on new shopping\ncenters.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded said policy is designed to\njust deal with Park Street and Webster Street; stated Alameda Towne\nCenter is addressed in Policy 2.5.f.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Policy 2.5.n [to maintain the historic\nurban form and character of Park Street and Webster Street business\ndistricts, limit building heights on Park Street and Webster Street\nto three stories above grade, measuring 35 to 40 feet, depending on\nroof configuration. Parking structures are to be limited by height\nonly, regardless of the number of parking levels] is silent on\nshopping centers; inquired whether the policy should address height\nfor shopping center buildings.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Policy 2.5.t contains\neleven design criteria.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why said policy does not include size\nand scale.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded historic urban form is the\nguide on the issue of design, height, and physical form on Park\nStreet and Webster Street stated Alameda Towne Center, Bridgeside,\nand Alameda Landing were developed under Planned Development zoning\nwhich allows for the establishment of setbacks and height standards\nfor the project; heights might vary from one shopping center to\nanother; shopping centers are designed as complexes; height is\naddressed when projects are reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Planning Board struggled with\nthe issue; Alameda Landing has a different set of rules.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 10, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated that the Planning Board is\nwilling to address building height on an individual project basis.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the Planning Board vote on the\nmatter, to which the Planning Services Manager responded unanimous.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether shopping center height limits\nwere discussed, to which The Planning Services Manager responded in\nthe negative.\nMayor Johnson stated the Planning Board's approach is good; having\nthe same building height for each shopping center does not make\nsense.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was discussion\nregarding neighborhood retail centersi stated the previous policy\naimed at reducing and containing said centers because retail in the\nmiddle of a residential area causes clashes; he hopes to get some\nlanguage added regarding preserving the scale of neighborhood\ncenters.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the issue is addressed in Policy\n2.5.o.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Policy 2.5.0 addresses the size\nof stores.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated a policy could be added.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Policy 2.5.0 should be modified\nto not only limit the size of a store but also to limit the size of\nthe district.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the policy could require\nmaintenance of the current neighborhood business district size.\nMayor Johnson stated that the same policy should apply to\nconversion of residential units as a whole.\nCouncilmember Gilmore commended staff and the Planning Board for\nall the hard work; stated Council has the strike-out and underline\nprovisions for comparisoni the General Plan is a living document;\nperiodic updates are important; having a document that reflects\nthat there was community consensus on a particular matter is\nimportant.\nMayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Gilmore makes a good point\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 11, "text": "certain General Plan elements are updated on a periodic basis,\nothers are not.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Transportation Element\nupdate would be the next major element update.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the requirement to have five\noff-street parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of new retail\nspace is a zoning requirement; stated things have been done\ndifferently in the last couple of developments; further inquired\nwhether any leeway has been given to dropping down the number of\nrequired spaces.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the in-lieu fee process has\nbeen used; stated staff is working on parking ordinance revisions;\nmore innovated parking approaches will be considered in the Alameda\nLanding Master Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking exception process\nhas been used, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff is comfortable with\nusing said process.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the process was designed to\nbe an interim approach until new requirements are in place.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to\ninclude additional language for maintaining commercial/retail uses\nwithin residential neighborhoods.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-123) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained\nin Article I, (Zoning Districts and Regulations) Chapter XXX,\n(Development Regulations), Pertaining to Retail and Commercial\nUses. Introduced.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board reviewed the\nproposed Ordinance and unanimously supports the staff\nrecommendation, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 12, "text": "affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the staff report makes reference to T.J.\nMaxx and Bed Bath and Beyond as being typical large format-type\nstores with 30,000 square feet 30,000 square feet triggers the\nneed for a Conditional Use Permit; inquired whether there was any\ndiscussion regarding the type of use within a retail site during\nthe Planning Board or Economic Development Commission\ndeliberations stated the United Food Workers have brought up\nconcerns regarding having a grocery store within a large center ;\n30,000 square feet would not cover a Target, Walmart, or Ikea type\ndevelopment.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the matter did not come up during\ndiscussions; stated the Planning Board viewed the matter as a land\nuse question.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the July 17, 2007 City Council\nMeeting reflects that Councilmember Matarrese discussed non-taxable\nitems sold in a superstore; that he [ Councilmember deHaan]\ndiscussed wages and health benefits; inquired whether said issues\nare addressed in the proposed ordinance.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that there was no discussion on\nthe issues.\nMayor Johnson opening the public portion of the hearing.\nNeutral Bill Smith, Alameda.\nProponents (In favor of Ordinance) : Mike Henneberry, Alameda [in\nfavor with modification] ; Patricia Curtin, Harsh Development.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson thanked Ms. Curtin for participating in the process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked staff and the Planning Board for\nworking on the issue; stated the 30,000 square foot threshold\nsurprised him but he understands the reasoning; inquired whether\nspecific projects would be reviewed by the Planning Board as\nPlanned Developments instead of a Conditional Use Permits.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative. stated\nPlanned Developments and Conditional Use Permits require the same\nfindings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 13, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned that the\nproposed ordinance does not put a cap on the number of square feet;\nhe understands the unintended consequences that a cap would place\non the reuse of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center warehouse, Del\nMonte Building, and Naval Air Station hangers; suggested using the\nsmallest square footage of historic buildings as the threshold for\nnot allowing more than 10% non-taxable items; stated that he would\nlike to have the historic buildings called out because said\nbuildings require special attention.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there was any discussion\nregarding the superstore issue at the Planning Board level.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Del Monte Building is 250,000\nsquare feet; redevelopment plans include a grocery store;\ntypically, grocery stores are between 30,000 and 50,000 square\nfeet; additional requirements were put into the findings which\nwould require reviewing how a project would affect the economic\nvitality of existing businesses; the City would have the discretion\nto say whether a project is right for Alameda or not superstores\nwere addressed in a more general manner.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council could approve the\nPlanned Development Amendment and give direction for the Planning\nBoard to review the superstore issue and call out the large\nhistorical buildings stated that she has an interest in the matter\nbut does not want to hold up the process.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative stated\nalternatively additional language could be added to the second\nreading of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the Planning Board has been\ninvolved and connected with the matter ; she does not want Council\nor staff to craft language without input and discussion from the\nPlanning Board; the matter could be placed on a Planning Board\nagenda in order to have more public discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember\nGilmore regarding historic buildings; Council gave direction on a\ngrocery component in a massive store; language was provided to\nstaff and the Planning Board.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that sales leakage should be discussed;\nentitlements have been made in various areas; studies have shown\nthat Alameda does not need more than one more grocery store even\nwith full build-out; a lot of data is available; balancing leakage\nis important.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 14, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated a Conditional Use Permit would\nbe required for anything over 30,000 square feet i suggested\nlayering Livermore's provision on top of said requirement ; inquired\nwhether there would be an exception for historic buildings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded historic buildings could have a\nlarge retailer; stated anything bigger than 90,000 square feet\nwould not be allowed to have more than 10% non-taxable items.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Del Monte Building would\nbe limited to approximately 12,000 square feet of non-taxable\nretail under the proposal.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the issue runs up against the desire\nto preserve historic buildings.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposal is directed at a large retailer\nthat has 10% of non-taxable within the one retail establishment\nThe Planning Services Manager stated he thinks that would prevent\nthe Del Monte project from moving forward.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is bothered by the fact that\nlanguage could be crafted which might have unintended consequences\nfor historic buildings the matter should be sent back to the\nPlanning Board along with an explanation of Council's concept.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with\ndirection to have the Planning Board review superstore language\nalong with consideration for large historic buildings, including,\nbut not be limited to, the Alameda Landing warehouses, Alameda\nPoint hangers, and the Del Monte Building; stated that he is\ndismayed that the matter was not addressed.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the City Attorney review wages\nand health benefit issues for retailers who have over one hundred\nemployees.\nMayor Johnson stated said issue is not a Planning issue.\nOn the call for the question, by consensus, the motion carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that everyone talks about Alameda not\nhaving enough shopping the staff report states \"Bringing\nadditional retail opportunities to Alameda would be expected to\nresult in shorter vehicle trips. Traffic levels on regional\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 15, "text": "roadways and total vehicle emissions would be expected to decline\ndue to the shorter trips required to shop locally; however, there\nmay be an increase in local traffic, particularly on streets near\nmajor retail centers in Alameda\"; stated that people need to\nrealize that more retail will result in more local traffic.\n(08-124) Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution\nApproving Master Plan Amendment, PLN07-0122, to Allow the Marina\nVillage Shopping Center to Permit up to 25% Office Use (A Maximum\nof 31,070 Square Feet) and to Allow the Future Addition of a 5,000\nSquare Foot Building Pad, an 800 Square Foot Kiosk, and a 500\nSquare Foot Kiosk.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would recuse himself because\nhe lives within 300 feet of the project.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the Planning Board requested that\nthe current amount of landscaping be preserved; inquired whether\n\"current\" means the current configuration or whether the current\namount of landscaping could be reconfigured somewhere else on the\nsite.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the landscaping could be\nreconfigured.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there would be an opportunity to add\nlandscaping to the parking lot.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded absolutely; noted that the\napplicant concurs.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the 6,300 square foot area is\ngrass area.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the\narea looks like a building pad.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the area is a perfect spot for\noffice space.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed amendment is to allow increased\noffice space; the location can shift over time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the occupancy rate at the\nshopping center.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 16, "text": "The Applicant responded the vacancy rate is approximately 3%\nstated small office use is in demand.\nMayor Johnson stated that having office space at the shopping\ncenter would relieve the pressure of expanding business and office\nspace into residential areas; the proposal makes sense.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson;\ninquired whether there has been any discussion regarding additional\nlandscaping.\nThe Applicant responded landscaping could be put around the future\npad.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated substantial trees are important in\nlarge parking areas.\nThe Applicant stated that he understands the importance of trees.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council is approving [both\n25% office use and additional square footage].\nCouncilmember deHaan responded both; stated one [25% office use]\ncorrects the existing situation.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed traffic.\nCouncilmember deHaan amended the motion to include the caveat of\nhaving the Planning Board review the landscaping.\nVice Mayor Tam stated approximately 17% of the space is leased for\noffice space; the Applicant is requesting 25% office space in\naddition to increasing the square footage by 6,300 square feet ;\nincreasing the square footage by 6,300 square feet would make the\ntotal 130,000 square feet 25% of 130,000 square feet is 32,500\nsquare feet.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the total build out would be\n130,729 square feet; no more than 25%, or 31,070 square feet, of\nthe shopping center would be devoted to office space.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 25% allowable office space is\nbefore 6,300 square feet is added or if 25% of the entire space\nwould be allowed for office use.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded 25% of the current built\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 17, "text": "space could be office; when the additional 6,300 square feet is\ncomplete, 25% of everything that is built could be office.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said proposal works with the\nApplicant's plans, to which the Applicant responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the resolution would be\ncorrected to state it is no more than 25% of the existing space.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with stating\n25% of the total entitled amount.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the 31,070 square feet would be\ntaken out of the resolution.\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated the resolution\nshould state 25% of the total entitled amount.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion with the following\ncaveats : 1) the current amount of landscaping be preserved or\npreferably be increased, 2) no drive-through uses be permitted, and\n3) language be clarified to remove square footage and indicate no\nmore than 25% of entitled space be used for office space.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with caveats added by Councilmember\nGilmore.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Tam and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Abstention Councilmember Matarrese - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08-125) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed alternative fuels.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-126 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Public Art Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Cecilia Cervantes and Andrea M. Leal.\n(08-127 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the recession could last\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 18, "text": "four or five years; the budget needs to be put in proper content i a\nmeltdown has started to occur.\n(08-128)\n-\nMayor Johnson stated that more focus needs to be placed\non long-term economic issues; thought should be given to forming a\ncommittee to focus on long-term economic sustainability; the matter\ncould possibly be placed under Council Referrals.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Economic Development Commission\ncould be tasked with the role, to which Mayor Johnson responded\npossibly.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is consensus to have\nthe matter placed on a City Council agenda.\nMayor Johnson responded the matter could be placed on a City\nCouncil agenda for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Toyota is in full swing of\nbuilding a facility on Hegenberger Road the facility will be in\nplace within six months Alameda cannot back fill anything quick\nenough.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:39 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 19, "text": "Under negotiation Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was\nreconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that Council and the Public\nUtilities Board received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators;\nno action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nPublic Utilities Board\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MARCH 18, 2008- - -6:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(08-113 - CC/08-14 - CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel\n-\nAnticipated Litigation; Significant exposure to litigation pursuant\nto subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that Council/Commission received\na briefing from Legal Counsel on a matter of potential litigation;\nno action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:40 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\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND HOUSING\nAUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MARCH 18, 2008- - -7:25 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:48 p.m.\nCommissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present :\nCommissioner/Board Members deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Board Member\nTorrey, and Mayor/Chai Johnson - 6.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(08-15) - Update on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether there is money in the contingency\nfor the parking structure fa\u00e7ade.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded $50,000 has been allocated from\nnext year's CIC budget.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the elevator timeframe is uncertain.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\ncontractor's workload increased; the Cineplex developer will need\nto do additional work after the contractor's work is complete;\nState inspections cannot be done until everything is complete.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is the status of the escalator.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the escalator has been\ninstalled but still needs some work.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether parking structure usage has\nincreased.\nThe edevelopment Manager responded somewhat stated staff is\nworking with the Park Street Business Association to increase\nawareness.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that the Central Avenue parallel\nparking looks good.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission and\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-03-18", "page": 22, "text": "Commissioner deHaan stated the theater needs to open to maximize\nuse of the parking structure; inquired when the street will reopen.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded when construction is completed.\nMINUTES\n(08-16) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement Commission\nMeetings held on February 6, 2008. Approved.\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(08-17) Recommendation to approve and authorize the Executive\nDirector/Chief Executive Officer to execute an Owner Participation\nAgreement Between the Community Improvement Commission, Housing\nAuthority and Resources for Community Development for the\ndevelopment of Shinsei Gardens Apartments on certain real property\non a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner/Board Member Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 6.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger,\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission and\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners\nMarch 18, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf"}