{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 16, 2008- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(08-384) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to\nconsider an Appeal of the Planning Board's Conditional Approval\n[paragraph no. 08-398 would be heard before the Public Hearing to\nconsider an Appeal of the July 14, 2008, Planning Board Approval\n[paragraph no. 08-399].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(08-385) Proclamation honoring Bananas for thirty-five years of\nservice.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judy Kriege\nfrom Bananas.\nMs. Kriege thanked Council for the proclamation; stated serving the\ncommunity is an honor; Bananas is looking forward to many years of\nservice to the community.\n(08-386) Proclamation declaring September 21 through 27 as Fall\nPrevention Awareness Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Jackie Krause\nfrom Mastick Senior Center.\nMs. Krause submitted a flyer and thanked Council for providing\nMastick Senior Center to the community stated the Annual Open\nhouse event will be held on Sunday, September 21 between 1:00 p.m.\nand 4:00 p.m.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the age requirement for\nparticipating at the Mastick Senior Center.\nMs. Krause responded fifty and older; stated the oldest member is\nninety-nine years old, lives in Oakland, walks five blocks, and\ntakes two buses to volunteer at the Center two days per week.\n(08-387) Mayor Johnson announced that there would be a Community\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 2, "text": "Action for a Sustainable Alameda (CASA) meeting at the \"O\" Club at\nAlameda Point on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, from 6:30 p.m. to\n8:30 p.m.\n(08-388) - Presentation regarding the Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Fa\u00e7ade\nGrant Program.\nThe Development Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired about funding levels.\nThe Development Coordinator responded funding levels have been\napproximately the same amount for the last two years; stated tax\nincrement funding is used.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether funding levels are adequate.\nThe Development Coordinator responded funds are running low; stated\nthere is a waiting list for funding.\nKathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , stated\nWABA supports the grant funding the grant funding brought Park\nStreet and Webster Street together Pappo's windows were reused at\nthe Fireside Lounge.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) thanked\nCouncil for the fa\u00e7ade grant program; stated that the funding\nprocess is easier than in the past.\n(08-389) The Interim Finance Director assured Council and the\ncommunity that the American International Group (AIG) marketing\nactivity has not affected the City's portfolio; stated the City has\ntwo guaranteed investment Contracts; one Contract invests reserve\nfunds for redevelopment and one Contract invests reserve funds for\nthe Community Facilities District Bond; the City has been assured\nby the City's portfolio managers that the federal government has\ndecided to back AIG.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to watch CalPERS policies and\ninvestments because the City has retirement investments with\nCalPERS; the City would pay more money if CalPERS investments do\nnot perform.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated CalPERS has altered its\ninvestment strategy because a significant amount of their portfolio\nwas in real estate investment trusts and inter-City urban\ndevelopment projects which were not performing; an Off Agenda\nReport can be provided with a complete analysis CalPERS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 3, "text": "investments; cost recovery changes if the portfolio does not\nperform and the City is not able to have investment earnings to\nhelp offset the costs.\nMayor Johnson stated the City picks up the tab if actuarial\nassumptions are off; requested that the matter be placed on a\nfuture agenda so the public understands the situation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the\nCity Manager to enter into MOU [paragraph no. 08-394] was removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*08-390) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nMeetings held on August 19, 2008; the Special Joint City Council\nand Public Utilities Board Meeting, the Special Joint City Council,\nCommunity Improvement Commission and Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners Meeting and the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nSeptember 2, 2008; and the Special City Council Meetings held on\nSeptember 3, 2008 and September 10, 2008. Approved.\n(*08-391) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,561,927.16\n(*08-392) Recommendation to authorize execution of a Grant of\nEasement to Pacific Gas & Electric for the Webster Street gas line\nrelocation. Accepted.\n(*08-393) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Webster Street joint trench and utility\nrelocation project, No. P.W. 08-08-23. Accepted.\n(08-394) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter\ninto a Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda County\nCongestion Management Agency for the implementation of the Webster\nStreet SMART Corridor Management Project in the amount of\n$1, 100,000, and to execute all necessary documents to implement the\nProject.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the project sounds very exciting; requested a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 4, "text": "short synopsis on what is involved and what the $1. 1 million would\ncover.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated the project would provide\ncapacity enhancements without widening a street or adding more\nlanes; the main purpose of the project is to provide traffic signal\npriority, which offers transit buses extra green time; all Webster\nStreet bus stops would have signs to alert riders when the next bus\nwould arrive; signal coordination is another asset of the project;\na new signal would be added at the Webster Street and Pacific\nAvenue intersection; signal pre-emption would be added along the\nWebster Street corridor for emergency response vehicles; the\nproject would have Intelligent Transportation System elements;\nMicrowave Vehicle Detection Systems would be added along the\nWebster Street corridor to collect real time traffic speed, volume,\nand lane occupancy data; cameras would be installed at key\nlocations in order to monitor traffic.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the project would be funded through\ngrants and would not impact the General Fund.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*08-395) Resolution No. 14265, \"Supporting Measure WW, the\nExtension of the Regional Open Space, Wildlife, Shoreline and Parks\nBond. \" Adopted.\n(*08-396) Public Hearing to consider an Amendment to the Grand\nMarina Village Master Plan to adjust lot lines for five parcels in\nthe development and adjust the boundaries of open space and a park\nwithin the development; and\n(*08-396A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan\nAmendment PLN08-0181 Adjusting Lot Sizes Within the Grand Marina\nVillage Master Plan. Introduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-397) Resolution No. 14266 \"Reappointing Lamont Carter as a\nMember of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 5, "text": "(08-398) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's Conditional Approval of a Major Design Review for an\naddition and a remodel that includes raising a single-family\nstructure and constructing a detached two-story dwelling unit at\n3327 Fernside Boulevard, within the R-2, Two-Family Residential\nZoning District; and\n( 08-398A) Resolution No. 14267, \"Denying an Appeal and Upholding\nthe Planning Board Decision Conditionally Approving Major Design\nReview DR07-0086 For the Structural Expansion of a Single-Family\nDwelling and the Addition of a Second Dwelling Unit at 3327\nFernside Boulevard. Adopted.\nThe Planning Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Applicant would be\nlimited to a thirty-foot height with the new condition, to which\nthe Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed condition is the same\ncondition that the Planning Board rejected.\nThe Planning Manager responded the proposed condition is a little\ndifferent because a lower height maximum would be allowed.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board saw the proposed\ncondition, to which the Planning Manager responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Applicant would be able\nto increase the height by no more than one foot, stay within the\nthirty-foot height limit, and rework the back of the house, to\nwhich the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board discussed\nthe concept of reworking the back of the house but did not think it\nwas necessary, to which the Planning Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is confused why a new condition would\nbe added at this point.\nThe Planning Manager stated the new condition allows the Applicant\nto increase the height of the building, make it architecturally\ncompatible, and stay within the guidelines.\nMayor Johnson inquired how long the project has been going on.\nThe Planning Manager responded the application went before the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 6, "text": "Planning Board in June.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant is requesting added\nheight.\nThe Planning Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the added\nheight would not exceed the height limit for the property's zoning\ndistrict.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the compromise has been discussed\nwith the Applicant, to which the Planning Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nMayor Johnson stated the process is odd.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the back of the house has an addition\nfrom some prior lifetime and is not architecturally significant;\nthe [back of the] house faces the estuary and cannot be seen from\nthe street; that she is trying to understand what is the motivation\nin requiring the condition.\nThe Planning Manager stated the condition would remain consistent\nwith the Planning Board recommendation to achieve a condition that\nis architecturally compatible with the existing house.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the matter went back to the Planning\nBoard recently.\nThe Planning Manager responded that the matter went to the Planning\nBoard in June for Design Review and went to the Planning Board\nearlier in the year when variances were requested.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the Planning Board stipulated that the\nstructure should not exceed thirty-feet in height regardless of any\narchitectural detail; staff indicated an architectural detail would\nexceed the thirty-foot height by nine inches a condition is\nproposed to bring the height back under thirty feet which is in\nconformance with what the Planning Board gave as a general\ncondition.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Applicant would still\nneed to clip the top of the house.\nThe Planning Manager responded the house would need to be clipped\nby approximately nine inches.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the reason for raising the\nbuilding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 7, "text": "The Planning Manager responded the Applicant wants to provide\nheight in the garage area.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of Appeal) : Patricia Baer, Alameda; Elizabeth\nKrase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; Richard\nW. Rutter, AAPS; Nancy Hird, Alameda: Christopher Buckley, AAPS;\nGrinne Lambden, AAPS.\n(Opponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : JoAnne Chandler, Alameda: Jon\nSpangler, Alameda; Kexis Brownson; Alameda; Donna Talbot, Applicant\n(submitted handout) i James Rauk, Applicant.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicants are not asking for\nany variances and are not exceeding the thirty-foot height limit,\nto which the Applicant responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant was told that the\nGuidelines for Residential Design supercedes the Alameda Municipal\nCode.\nThe Applicant responded that a Planner told her that the Guidelines\ntrump the Code.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the thirty-foot height limit\nis the only Planning Board condition, to which the Applicant\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether tonight's recommendation is\nfor the thirty-foot height limit, the one-foot height increase, and\nmodifications to the back of the house, to which the Applicant\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff's recommendation is\ntwelve inches and the Planning Board's recommendation is fifteen\ninches, to which the Planning Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe Applicant questioned the three-inch change.\nThe Planning Manager stated the three inches is a compromise.\nMayor Johnson inquired who worked out the compromise, to which the\nPlanning Manager responded staff.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether AAPS had any input on the\ncompromise, to which the Planning Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether raising [the house]\nfifteen inches and making adjustments to roof level would still be\nunder thirty feet, to which the Applicant responded the peak would\nbe thirty feet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed massing and appearance\nof the sides of the house are substantially larger. inquired how\nthe matter was interpreted as meeting the characteristics of a\ncraftsman style house; stated the intent of the guidance is not to\nreplicate a house but to have certain attributes that make the\nhouse recognizable.\nThe Planning Manager stated staff recommends lowering the height\nwhere the windows meet the top plate and incorporating features,\nsuch as a dormer over the windows, to get craftsman architectural\nfeatures.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the elevation is obscured\nby a large house.\nThe Planning Manager responded the opposite side has a more public\nview of the side of the house.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the driveway side has a greater\ndistance between houses; inquired whether the elevations are the\nsame for both sides, to which the Planning Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the Planning Board rejected the condition\nregarding changes to the side; inquired what is the relationship\nbetween the Guidelines and the Code.\nThe Planning Manager responded the Guidelines are a resource that\nthe staff and public can use when evaluating a project for\ncompatibility with a neighborhood or existing structure.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Planning Department needs to have a\nclear understanding of the Guidelines; stating that the Guidelines\ntrump the Code is wrong.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board and Applicants came\nto an agreement on what the Code and Guidelines require; the\nPlanning Board agreed to go with the design but wanted to observe\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 9, "text": "the thirty-foot height limit she is concerned that staff made\nchanges after the fact and did not involve Applicant input.\nMr. Buckley stated that the Guide to Residential Design states : \"In\norder for a design review application to be approved, finding must\nbe made that the project conforms to the Guide to Residential\nDesign.'\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the elevation is less busy than what\nwould be for the right side elevation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the driveway is a concerning factor ;\nold architecture allowed driveways slops down into the basement;\nlevel driveways have a nicer feel.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff advised the Applicant\nthat they could raise the building twelve inches with a thirty feet\nlimit in height, to which the Applicant responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that the Applicant questioned what\nhappened to the extra three inches.\nThe Planning Manager stated the three inches are a compromise.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is trying to get to the point of\nblending form and function; inquired whether the twelve inches\nwould allow sufficient room for handicap accessibility.\nThe Planning Manager responded in the affirmative stated the\ngarage roof layer would be raised to the height the Applicant would\nneed; adjustments would be made to the peak of the roof.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she does not understand what is so bad\nabout raising the structure by fifteen inches.\nThe Planning Manager stated that staff developed a compromise\nbetween what was originally proposed which is not raising the\nbuilding height at all and what the Planning Board approved, which\nis not allowing a building more than thirty feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff recommends changing the slope\nof the roof.\nThe Planning Manager responded the Applicant would need to change\nthe upper slope to either achieve what staff recommends or what the\nPlanning Board approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that the project was recommended to go to the\nHistorical Advisory Board in error; the Applicants were ready to\ncome to Council a month ago; an error was made in the noticing\nrequirements; the project needs to move along.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of upholding the Planning Board\ndecision and overturning the appeal.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated that the compromise is not\nbetween raising the building to be in conformance with the Code but\nis about trying to balance the form and necessity of the function\nof the building for the Applicant.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council would be denying the\nappeal and approving the Planning Board recommendation with the\nonly condition that the building not exceed thirty feet, to which\nCouncilmember deHaan and Vice Mayor Tam responded in the\naffirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the project has had a litany of\nfumbles; requested that a report be provided outlining preventative\nand corrective actions to prevent further occurrences, including\ncommunicating with applicants; the report should include\ninformation on the use of the Guide to Residential Design versus\nthe Municipal Code, the place for review by the HAB, and\nnotification process stated this is not the first time that the\nnotification issue has come up; he would like the report soon so\nthat Council should hear the matter within a month so that the same\nmistakes are not made again.\nMayor Johnson stated the language in the section of the Guidelines\nreferenced by Mr. Buckley creates ambiguity; requested that the\nDesign Review Guidelines be brought back to Council for\nclarification\nThe City Manager stated a resolution would be provided to the City\nClerk to ensure that Council action is clearly recorded.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates staff's efforts\nto move the project forward; staff reached a compromise and there\nwas no communication with the property owner regarding the\ncompromise; property owners need to be involved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the requested report should include\nsome analysis of the root cause; he wants to be convinced that the\ncorrection matches the cause; delays cost the Applicant and City\nmoney.\nMayor Johnson stated that delays cost staff time also.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 9:57 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council meeting at 10:11 p.m.\n***\n(08-399) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the July 14,\n2008, Planning Board Approval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090,\nAllowing the Reconstruction of Building 1000, located in the\nAlameda Towne Centre at 2230 South Shore Center; and\n(08-399A) Resolution No. 14268, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nApproval of Major Design Review PLN08-0090, Allowing the\nReconstruction of Building 1000, Located in the Alameda Towne\nCentre, at 2230 South Shore Center. Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what type of process Orchard Supply\nHardware (OSH) would have to go through if they decided to take the\nbuilding \"as is\"; further inquired how long the process would take.\nThe Supervising Planner responded OSH would need to get a business\nlicense; a permit would be needed if OSH wanted a sign; stated the\nprocess could be completed in a morning.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether OSH could go in as a matter\nof course if exterior changes were not being proposed.\nThe Supervising Planner responded a hardware store is a permitted\nuse in the zoning district stated there would be no discretionary\nentitlement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City has the legal\nright to exclude OSH from the permitted use within the Center, to\nwhich the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City could prohibit\nanother coffee shop in the Center if other coffee shop merchants\nsaid no.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the tenant does\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 12, "text": "not need to get permission if the use is permitted.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents ( In favor of Appeal) : David Giovannoli, Pagono's\nHardware; Claire Yeaton-Risley, Alameda; Holly Sellers, Alameda;\nPatty Jacobs, Greater Alameda Business Association; Richard\nBurgess, Alameda; Alan Ryan, Economic Development Corporation;\nDorothy Freeman, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; David Kirwin,\nAlameda; Robb Ratto, Alameda; Patricia Baer, Alameda; Reid\nWetherill, Alameda; Iris Watson, Alameda; Arthur Lipow, Alameda;\nKate Eckhaus, Alameda; Richard Eckhaus, Alameda; Barbara Mooney,\nAlameda; Nick Petrulakis, Alameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda;\nPhilip Jaber, Encinal Hardware; Richard Biggar, Alameda;\nOpponents (Not in favor of Appeal) : Allan Ryan, Alameda; Robert\nMananquil, Trader Joe's; Peter Schamoni, Alameda Realty Center;\nJames Robinson, Fit Lite by 24 Hour Fitness; David Estep, Massage\nEnvy; Steve Hill, Orchard Supply Hardware; Mike Corbit, Harsch\nDevelopment; Randy Kyte, Harsch Development.\nNeutral Bill Smith, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the staff report mentions that there is\nan existing Planned Development Agreement (PDA) that modifies the\nAlameda Municipal Code by requiring a PDA for an expansion over 5%\nof the total shopping center area; the analysis shows there would\nstill be approximately 2% of the total square footage if the garden\ncenter is included in the calculation; inquired whether said\nanalysis is correct, to which the Supervising Planner responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is having trouble understanding what\nis considered in the square footage and what is not.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the [garden] floor area is not part\nof the building but would have merchandise for sale; additional\nparking would not be required if an existing business wanted to add\nan unenclosed garden area; additional parking might be required if\nthe building site was increased; adding square footage to the\nshopping center would not trigger a planned development amendment.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the existing planned development amendment is\nmore stringent; inquired whether the higher square footage\n[including garden area] falls under the 5% trigger in the existing\nplanned development amendment, to which the Supervising Planner\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 13, "text": "responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated technical aspects are not the issue\ntonight ; the issue is what Alamedan's want; every EDC leakage study\ncontained a paragraph stating that existing retailers would not be\naffected; urbanists advise that the City should look at retail\nnodes i Alameda has fourteen retail nodes which are extremely\nimportant the businesses discussed tonight are anchors; a major\nAlameda asset [nodes could collapse if anchors disappear i that he\nis concerned with the fabric of Alameda; retail mix needs to be\nreviewed and should go to the EDC for review.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the retail leakage analysis was done\nthrough the EDC.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Alameda Landing project was\nthoroughly vetted through a wide variety of Boards and Commissions.\nMayor Johnson stated that she remembers a series of EDC meetings\nheld throughout the community; inquired whether the meetings were\npart of the retail analysis, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there were no less that four different\nretail analyses; all of the analyses said the same thing.\n***\n(08-400 ) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a resolution adopted by the Planning\nBoard in 2003 required the applicant to submit a plan for a Planned\nDevelopment Amendment and Major Design Review prior to the issuance\nof building permits for the Phase that includes the present car\nwash site, Building 1800, Building 1000, and subsequent phases ;\ninquired how said resolution impacts tonight's discussion.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Applicant was required to\ncome back with a different design for the shoreline area and gas\nstation location; the Planning Board did not want the 2003 Building\n1000 built until a new Planned Development Amendment addressed the\nshoreline area; the Applicant complied in 2005 and currently is\ngoing through Planning Board hearings the 2003 Building 1000 is\nnot the same building being discussed tonight the 2003 building\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 14, "text": "was much larger and in a different location.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she was on the Planning Board at\nthat time; that she remembers the discussion regarding the\nshoreline site and wanting to put restaurants at the former movie\ntheatre site; Page 14, paragraph 22 states that \"The project may\ninclude one store up to 90,000 square feet in floor area and two\nstores each up of up to 60,000 square feet. Any larger store shall\nrequire a Planned Development Amendment. Additions or modifications\nof less than 5% in overall center area may be approved by\nAdministrative Design Review\"; she has been a customer of all\nretail establishments discussed tonight ; she understand the\nconcerns; one speaker brought up the cigarette store on Park\nStreet; the City was sued and had to pay the rent for several years\nuntil tenants rented the site; she needs to balance the\nconsideration of potentially being sued by the shopping center and\nthe precarious budget; she wants Alameda to be known as a City that\nlives up to agreements.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the City's policies reflect the concern and\ndesire to make sure that small businesses survive; the City has\nallocated money to support the Park Street Business Association,\nWest Alameda Business Association, and Greater Alameda Business\nAssociation; a lot of money is spent on advertising, landscape and\nlighting, and fa\u00e7ade grants; the City cannot dictate the tenant at\na particular site; the City has to abide by established agreements\nwith Alameda Towne Center there is not a lot of choice in\ndetermining tenants at Alameda Towne Centre.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution [upholding the\nPlanning Board's decision].\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated the reality is that\nOSH could take the building as is and open in one month because OSH\nis a permitted use.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Alameda Towne Centre is part of\nAlameda; the developer would advise the City of an anticipated\nlawsuit; inquired whether buncilmember Gilmore heard anything on\nthe issue.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded in the negative; stated she would\nbe remise if she did not consider the possibility of a lawsuit.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City put caveats into the Alameda\nLanding PDA; a decision should be postponed for further discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated Council discussed the type of retail\ndesired for the Bridgeside Shopping Center the City did not get\nthe upscale retail desired; the developer showed her pages of\nfailed attempts to get upscale tenants; incentives can be provided,\nbut the free market allows a business to calculate whether money\ncan be made in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated that she met with the Appellants and Alameda\nTowne Centre representatives; OSH is not her first choice. Alameda\nTowne Centre representatives tried to get other tenants, including\nelectronic retailers; the City is not the property owner and cannot\nselect the tenants; the City is very supportive of small businesses\nand has invested a lot of money in streetscapes, Theater\nrenovation, and fa\u00e7ade grants South Shore continued to decline\nover the last forty-five years the City cannot buy or take over\nthe lease; small businesses can compete.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City has a certain amount of\ncontrol over what comes into the business districts; the EDC and\nPlanning Board need to review whether permitted uses should be\nadjusted because times have changed; the 2003 Planning Board\nresolution is a complex document and sets the context for what\nwould happen when the project came forward; OSH is a permitted use\nand the project should be approved.\nMayor Johnson stated the City of Vallejo was fighting over what\nshould go into the City; retailers decided to relocate across the\nborder of Vallejo. Alameda does not have enough sales and property\ntax revenue ; Measure P is being placed on the ballot reluctantly;\nthe voters will decide whether to support Measure P or have very\nsignificant cuts made to the City budget.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Target had an exclusive agreement twice\nwith Alameda Towne Center, Enterprise Landing, and Alameda Landing;\nTarget is a good fit at Alameda Landing OSH could be a better fit\nat Alameda Landing; putting OSH in the center of the City would\ncreate a major impact.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes Councilmember deHaan - 1.\n(08-401) Public Hearing to consider an Ordinance Amending Various\nSections of the Alameda Municipal Code Contained in Article I\n(Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX Development\nRegulations) to Prohibit Single Retail Stores Larger than 90,000\nSquare Feet in Size that Include More Than Ten-Percent Sales Floor\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 16, "text": "Area Devoted to Non-taxable Merchandise. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the proposed ordinance would\naffect the existing Development Agreements.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded one Development Agreement\nis with Harbor Bay Business Park and protects changes in zoning\nrequirements; the other Development Agreement is with Alameda\nLanding.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Bridgeside Shopping Center,\nthe Northern Waterfront, and Alameda Point would be affected by the\nproposed ordinance.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded all areas would be subject\nto the proposed ordinance; stated MX zoning would require Master\nPlans to be developed; Master Plans are mini ordinances for an\narea.\nMayor Johnson requested clarification on where the proposed\nordinance would apply.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the proposed ordinance would\napply to everywhere in the City with the exception of the area\ncovered by the Alameda Landing Development Agreement and Harbor Bay\nDevelopment Agreement.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of Ordinance) : Mike Henneberry, UFCW Local 5;\nJohn Nunes, UFCW Local 5; David Kirwin, Alameda; Phil Tucker,\nCalifornia Healthy Communities Network; Mark Wolfe, California\nHealthy Communities Network; Karen Bey, Alameda; Jon Spangler,\nAlameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the second paragraph on Page 2 of the\nstaff report states that \"Existing projects with approved\nDevelopment Agreements that specifically limit the City's ability\nto impose new regulations, such as Alameda Landing and Harbor Bay\nBusiness Park, may be exempt from the prohibition\"; inquired why\n\"may be\" is used.\nThe City Attorney responded the prohibition would depend on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 17, "text": "provisions within the relevant Development Agreement; stated the\nDevelopment Agreement would need to be reviewed; the Alameda\nLanding and Harbor Island Associates Development Agreements are\nexempt from the proposed ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated \"may be\" should be changed to \"are.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the proposed ban went before the\nPlanning Board and EDC ; inquired what was the recommendation.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the immediate reaction was\nthat there is already a Use Permit process that allows the City to\nturn down stores that do not work and also provides the flexibility\nto approve stores that work; the City does not want to send the\nmessage that the City is anti-business by adopting flat out\nprohibitions; the Planning Board raised a couple questions\nregarding administrative management.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board and EDC agreed that\nthe community does not want a Walmart or a super center that she\nis troubled that neither the Planning Board or EDC thought that\nprohibition was not the best tool.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Planning Board did not\nthink the matter is a planning issue but more of an economic issue;\nthat he appreciates the focus on economics; there was consensus\nthat some type of prohibition is needed but sending the wrong\nmessage is a concern; a Use Permit is needed for a building that is\ngreater than 30,000 square feet; Council has the benefit of\nPlanning Board and EDC discussions.\nMayor Johnson stated the measure is reasonable and is not too\nrestrictive or overly broad; the proposed ordinance does a good job\nof accomplishing the goal with the combination of square footage\nand non-taxable.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he supports the proposed\nordinance; leakage studies show that there is room for only one\nmore grocery store; the Del Monte project will take care of that\nneed; a grocery store threshold is approximately 160,000 square\nfeet; a Walmart is approximately 210,000 square feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the status of the Del Monte project.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded shell improvements are\nbeing made; stated a large format retail Use Permit will be needed\nbefore occupancy if there is over 30,000 square feet of retail; one\nto two years of structural work is needed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 18, "text": "Vice Mayor Tam stated the proposed ordinance is a better tool than\nusing a Major Design Review and is consistent with the City's\npolicy to protect small businesses; the EDC minutes are very\nprecise; the EDC clearly understands the principle of using zoning\nto ensure that there are businesses that promote good labor\npractices; the EDC recognizes the other principles that go with the\neconomic and community impact of having a super store in Alameda;\nthe EDC would like to see a more nuance ordinance; it was not clear\nwhat the nuance tool would look like.\nVice Mayor Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the feasibility of\nhaving the EDC and Planning Board review Use Permits for 30,000\nsquare feet or more.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08-402) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed energy efficiency.\n(08-403)\nRobb Ratto, Alameda, stated that he questions a procedure\nthat allows people with no standing to appeal a Planning Board\ndecision on a residential matter; inquired whether there is any way\nto limit who can appeal a residential Planning Board decision.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-404) Consideration of Resolution No. 14269, \"Amending\nResolution No. 12121 Setting the Order of Business of City of\nAlameda City Council Meeting. \" Adopted.\nMayor Johnson stated that having a section on the agenda for City\nManager staff communications would be a good idea; the public would\nbe updated on significant issues.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated placement of the item could be\nadjusted; the item should be before the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Gilmore suggested that the item be placed before or\nafter the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam stated placement would depend upon the subject.\nMayor Johnson stated the community needs to be kept informed of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 19, "text": "significant items; most meetings would not have City Manager\nreports.\nThe City Manager suggested that the item be placed before regular\nagenda items.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution, with\nmoving City Manager Communications before Agenda items.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-405 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Economic Development Commission and Youth Advisory Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Harry Dahlberg and Michael J. Schmitz for\nreappointment to the Economic Development Commission and continued\nnominations for remaining vacancies; nominated Maggie Mei for\nappointment to the Youth Commission; continued nominations for\nremaining vacancies.\n(08-406) - Councilmember deHaan stated there would be a review of\nthe conceptual portion for the Alameda Point project September 19,\n2008; he was hoping that the matter would come back to Council.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated many meetings have been held with\ncommittees; a joint meeting is being scheduled with the\nTransportation Commission and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority for acceptance of the Master Plan prior to November.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the matter would be reviewed\nby anyone else.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the matter would be going to\nthe Recreation and Park Commission, Planning Board, etc.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 1:05 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 16, 2008- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 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(08-382 - ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957) ; Title:\nCity Manager.\n(08-383) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9 i Name of case Collins V. City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee, Council\nand the City Manager met for a periodic performance review; no\naction was taken; regarding Existing Litigation, Council received a\nbriefing from Legal Counsel regarding the status of litigation and\npotential settlement discussions and gave direction to Legal\nCounsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:55 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\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-09-16", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 - 7:25 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting at 8:06 p.m. Commissioner Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Gilmore 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(*08-48) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand ledevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nMeetings held on August 19, 2008; and Special Joint City Council,\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners Meeting of September 2, 2008. Approved.\n(*08-49) - Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to\nexecute an Amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with Harris\n& Associates for Engineering and Construction Support Services for\nthe final phase of the Bayport Project by adding additional budget\nauthority in an amount not to exceed $198,000 (of which $104,000\nwill be reimbursed by the homebuilder for In-Tract Plan Review and\nInspection) . Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:07 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nSeptember 16, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-09-16.pdf"}