{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 3, 2009- -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\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\n(09-089) Proclamation declaring March 2009 as Polio Awareness\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Stafford,\nPresident of Alameda Rotary.\nMr. Stafford thanked Council for the proclamation; stated more work\nneeds to be done to eradicate polio once and for all.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09-090],\nthe recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\n[paragraph no. 09-092], and the Final Passage [paragraph no. 09-\n094] were pulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan 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(09-090) - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on\nFebruary 7, 2009, the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on February 17, 2009, and the Special City Council Meeting\nheld on February 24, 2009.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the\nFebruary 17, 2009 minutes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Tam moved approval of the February 7, 2009 and\nFebruary 24, 2009 minutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the February 17, 2009 minutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and\nMayor Johnson - 3. Abstentions: Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2.\n(*09-091) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,417,821.53\n(09-092) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending September 30, 2008.\nSpeaker David Howard, Alameda, submitted handout.\nCouncilmember Gilmore complimented the Finance Department for the\nreport; stated the report is complete; that she is impressed with\nthe County and State information; comparative quarters show that\nthe City has not varied much; that she would like to have next\nquarter's receipts compared to this quarter receipts.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated the sales tax consultant\nadvised public information could not be released if a particular\ncategory had less than three businesses; staff is in the process of\nrevising the chart; the restaurant category saw an over 20%\nincrease.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Harbor Bay Business Park\nchange is because more businesses are coming in and the reverse is\ntrue of Alameda Point, to which the Interim Finance Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the reoccurring decline is a concern; the\nState held half way stable because of service station figures,\nwhich are currently declining.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested clarification on the increase in\nwholesale building materials which is a triple digit increase.\nThe Interim Finance Director stated Kohl's construction contributed\nto the increase; projected sales tax is $5.2 million for this year;\nthe figure was reduced to $4.8 million mid year; staff hold firm\nthat $4.8 million will come in this year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated that she is impressed with the North of\nLincoln Avenue and Webster Street sales tax; inquired what\ntriggered the increase.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded that the next report would\ntarget geography and provide a better understanding of growth.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *09-093) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nAgreements with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority and\nHarbor Bay Maritime for the Operation of the MV Pisces.\n(09-094) Final Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding Article XX to Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)\nand Amending Subsection 30-7.12 (Reduction in Parking Requirements\nfor Existing Facilities) of Section 30-7 (Off-Street Parking and\nLoading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development\nRegulations) By Adding Subsection 30-7.12(c to Allow for\nReduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic Retrofit. Continued\nto March 17, 2009.\nSpeaker : Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, provided a\nhandout.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested an explanation of the fee structure.\nThe Building Official stated the property owner would have eighteen\nmonths to provide an engineering report once notification is given;\na $750 fee would be charged once the report is submitted.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the fee would be per unit, to\nwhich the Building Official responded the fee would be per\nbuilding.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a condominium would be charged\nas one unit, to which the Building Official responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired why \"soft story\" is not included in the\ntitle.\nThe Building Official responded that he does not know; stated \"soft\nstory\" is noted throughout the report ; several articles have been\nwritten on the matter; property owners were notified of two public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 4, "text": "a determination is made that there is no impact.\nThe Building Official responded the property owner would have the\nability to appeal before completing the report; stated there would\nnot be a cost until the report is submitted; staff is being careful\nin identifying the buildings volunteer engineers would be\ninspecting the buildings.\nMayor Johnson stated a speaker at the last Council meeting\nmentioned that he did some retrofitting and believes that his\nstructure is sound; inquired whether the speaker could appeal\nbefore a study is performed, to which the Building Official\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether insurance companies and banks\npenalize property owners once the buildings are identified as soft\nstory.\nThe Building Official responded insurance companies know whether a\nbuilding is soft story; Berkeley and Fremont owners have been able\nto obtain insurance and loans.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nMayor Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was not at\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 5, "text": "the last Council meeting; that she does not have the real flavor of\nthe speakers' comments and is uncomfortable voting either way on\nthe matter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would withdraw his motion\nand defer the matter until the next Council meeting.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-095) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's denial of a request to remove 2413 Buena Vista\nAvenue from the Alameda Historical Building Study List and denial\nof a Certificate of Approval to allow demolition of the structure;\nand\n(09-095A) Resolution No. 14311, \"Granting the Applicant's Appeal\nand Overturning the Historical Advisory Board's Denial of Planning\nApplications Numbers, PLN 08-0211 and PLN 02-0970, Requests to\nDelete 2413 Buena Vista Avenue from the Alameda Historical Building\nStudy List and a Certificate of Approval to Allow Demolition of the\nBuilding. \" Adopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Bill Phua, Appellant/Applicant\nHugh K. Phares, Alameda; John M. Costello, Alameda; Leonard Goode;\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Debbie George,\nPSBA: Donna Layburn, Market Place.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Adam Garfinkle, Alameda; Patsy\nPaul, Alameda, (submitted comments) ; Rosemary McNally, Alameda;\nRandall Miller, Historical Advisory Board (HAB ) ; Valerie Turpen,\nAlameda; Betsy Mathieson, Alameda, (submitted handout) ; Richard W.\nRutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)\n;\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS; Erik Miller, Alameda; Nancy Clark,\nAlameda; Melanie Wartenber, Alameda; Corinne Lambden, Alameda.\nNeutral Mark Irons, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested information on the zoning of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 6, "text": "parking lots.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the parking lots are zoned\nCommercial Manufacturing (CM)\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what the zone is for the parking\nlot behind the Market Place, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded that he believes the parking lot is zoned CM.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether zoning information is part\nof the real estate transaction.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that he does not know;\nstated staff would provide the information to anyone who checked\nwith the City.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated speakers spoke about the house being a\nlabor of love; that she has no doubt that the house could be\nrestored; the problem is finding someone to love the house;\nanything is possible with enough money, love and desire. inquired\nhow many parking spaces would be needed for the proposed project\nand how many parking places the lot would provide.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded 50 parking spaces would be\nrequired for the proposed project; stated the total number of\nparking spaces on site is 40; 2413 Buena Vista Avenue has\napproximately 17 compact parking spaces.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested clarification on whether 10-15% of\nthe structure would remain original and the rest would be\nreplicated.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the engineer noted that 10-15%\nof the structure could remain; the remaining portion would be\nmilled to match or would be as close as possible to what is there\nnow.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there are any rules for\nreplication and whether it would be treated as historic\npreservation.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded a project would be\nconsidered a demolition if the entire siding was eliminated; stated\nreplacing the siding with something that would match would be\nconsidered replacement in kind and would not trigger the demolition\nthreshold: currently, staff is working on the wording of the\nhistoric preservation regulations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired whether the house would no longer be\neligible to be on the National Register of Historic Places list if\n80-90% of the materials were replaced.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the historic resource would\nnot be preserved if the original siding and windows were\nreplicated; further responded that the historic building study list\nwas developed in late 1970's and listed properties in Alameda that\nwere afforded historic preservation the house no longer retains\neligibility on the State list; a subsequent change in the zoning\ncode gave historic consideration to buildings built prior to 1942.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a demolition permit would not be\nneeded if the house were removed from the list.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe HAB would still need to grant a Certificate of Approval because\nthe house was built prior to 1942.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated it is hard to believe that only 10% of the\nbuilding would remain in tact; the roof, siding, and interior walls\nwould remain; a house located at 1423 Morton Street was on the\nhistorical building study list. staff recommended upholding the\nHAB's denial of a request to tear the house down; the only\ndifference in tonight's situation is retail upgrading.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Buena Vista house was\nplaced on the historical building study list because it is a Queen\nAnne Victorian cottage; that he feels that the house is no longer\neligible for inclusion of the State Historic Resource Inventory\nbecause of deterioration, streetscape changes, and that the\narchitect, designer and builder are unknown.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated consistency is important; inquired whether\nstaff is helping the owner to relocate the house to the former\nIsland High School site.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the matter has been\nconsidered; stated specifics have not been discussed with the\nproperty owner.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether dialogue has been closed\nregarding relocation.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated the\nproperty owner is still willing to entertain proposals to relocate\nthe house.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired about deconstruction.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the reuse of existing\nmaterials is strongly encouraged; community members have expressed\nan interest in reusing some of the building materials.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether homes wedged in the R-5, R-2 and\ncommercial areas would be endangered.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded tonight's decision would be\nspecific to the site; stated a precedent would not be set.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he is hard pressed to consider\nremoval of the house for eight spaces.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would be 17 spaces,\nto which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how deep is the lot, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded 149.85 feet deep and 40 feet\nwide.\nMayor Johnson stated each case needs to be considered individually;\nthat she was on the Council at the time of the Morton Street\nproject; that she voted against demolition; the Morton Street\nproject was not part of a larger project or parking issues; the\nowner owned the property for many years and allowed the property to\ndeteriorate significantly.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the system is set so that each\nproperty has its own hearing; the Morton Street house was in a\nresidential area; the Buena Vista Avenue house is in a transition\nzone; decisions are difficult when there is residential next to\ncommercial activity; the Buena Vista house is isolated from\nresidential by the fact that there is a parking lot on the southern\nside; there is no indication of a noteworthy resident, architect or\nbuilder.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated some of the architectural and\nhistoric features have deteriorated over time due to neglect; the\nhistoric neighborhood has been altered over time; the site is not\nassociated with a historic event.\nMayor Johnson stated a number of speakers stated that they do not\nwant the building to be demolished; however, revitalization in the\narea is highly dependent on parking ; AAPS suggested more marketing\nto find someone to take the house; inquired whether the owner has\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 9, "text": "any objection.\nMr. Phua responded that he has no objection to giving away the\nhouse in a reasonable amount of time.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for getting permits\nfor the rest of the project.\nMr. Phua responded as soon as the entitlement process is complete,\nwhich could be six months.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the affect on the\nproject if the demolition were contingent on obtaining a permit for\nconstruction.\nMr. Phua responded there would not be a problem if building and\ndemolition permits would be granted; stated other processes could\nmake the project uncertain.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether deconstruction was considered,\nto which Mr. Phua responded not seriously.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated deconstruction could result in a tax write\noff.\nMr. Pua stated that he has not studied said option.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff opened dialogue regarding the former\nIsland High School site through Development Services.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff discussed the matter with\nthe School District; the house would need to be integrated into a\nlarger project; economics need to be reviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like other alternatives to\nbe reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal with\nthe condition that the demolition permit not be issued until the\npermits for the project are pulled.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that his motion is made by weighing\nthe benefit of preserving a house with debatable costs against the\nvalue of a retail project on Park Street to replace sales tax loss\nand pushing forward the north of Lincoln Avenue project for\nrevitalizing from Lincoln Avenue to the bridge.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the motion could include a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 10, "text": "deconstruction requirement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the motion would include having\nthe feasibility of deconstruction and reuse to the highest extent\npossible.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the motion could include efforts\nto relocate the building.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded that the motion would encourage\nrelocation without holding up permits.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion as modified.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam stated that she supports the\nmotion; forcing the property owner to restore the house against his\nwill and possibly not receiving any historical value after\nrestoration seems to defeat the purpose of forcing a restoration on\nthe site.\nCouncilmember Gilmore urged the owner to do everything possible to\ntry and give away the house.\nOn the call of the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes Vice Mayor deHaan - 1.\n(09-096) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's decision to conditionally approve a Certificate of\nApproval to alter more than thirty percent of the value of a\nhistorically significant residential building located at 1150 Bay\nStreet for the purpose of remodeling a previous addition and adding\na\nfront porch. The site is located within an R-1, One Family\nResidential Zoning District; and adoption of related resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore and Vice Mayor deHaan stated that they would\nrecuse themselves on the matter because of living in close\nproximity of the subject property.\nThe Planner III gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the existing porch is the\noriginal porch.\nThe Planner III responded the existing porch is the original porch\nbut has been modified; stated the side porch entrance was removed.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 11, "text": "Proponents ( In favor of appeal) : Robert Wooley, Appellant,\n(submitted handout) i Robert Ramos, Alameda; John Gaskill, Alameda;\nSally Damson, Alameda; Dee Keltner, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Robert Mackensen, Yuba City,\n(submitted letter) i Mark Irons, Alameda; Tricia Emerson, Alameda;\nKaren Thompson, Alameda; Jerry Wilkins, Custom Kitchens Linda\nMcKenna, Custom Kitchens, Inc. i Craig Combs, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson requested clarification on the HAB process.\nThe Planner III stated there were two vacancies when the project\nwent before the HAB; there were only three sitting members the\nfirst time the project went to the HAB, the HAB voted two to one to\ndeny the Certificate of Occupancy ; the second time the HAB voted\ntwo to one denying the Applicant's request for Certificate of\nApproval the third time the HAB voted two to one in favor of\ngranting the Applicant Certificate of Approval.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a minimum of three votes was needed\nor whether a majority of those present was needed, to which the\nPlanner III responded a majority of those present.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the project was brought back so many\ntimes.\nThe Planner III responded the project was brought back a third time\nbecause after the HAB denied the Certificate of Approval, the\nApplicant was directed to redesign the porch and return the\nfollowing month with a new design.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the HAB voted to continue the\nitem to a future meeting to allow the Applicant to go back and\nredesign the project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter sounds like a Design\nReview issue, which would be handled by the Planning Board;\ninquired why the matter went to the HAB.\nThe Planner III responded the project went to the HAB because the\nApplicant was proposing to alter more than 30% of the building; the\nCity's Historical Preservation Ordinance requires that the\nApplicant receive a Certificate of Approval from the HAB ; the\nApplicant went to the Planning Board after receiving a Certificate\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 12, "text": "of Approval because the approved design required a side yard set\nback variance; in December 2008, the project went before the\nPlanning Board for Design Review of the entire project the\nPlanning Board approved the project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the ordinance needs to be revisited\nbecause the HAB was doing Planning Board work.\nMs. Damson stated that one HAB Member felt compelled to revisit the\nprevious month's vote and she changed her vote.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated staff has been working on\nthe ordinance for some time; the ordinance is almost ready; another\nitem on tonight's agenda reflects a change in the Charter that\nwould require a quorum of the full HAB to make a decision rather\nthan a quorum of those present.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the Planning Board's decision.\nThe Planner III responded the Planning Board granted the Applicant\nthe variance for the side yard set back reduction and Design Review\napproval for the entire project, which included the porch.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that a number of\nporches on the block have the same design as the one proposed\ntonight inquired how the designs affect the streetscape in\ncomparison to the proposed project.\nThe Planner III responded 1150 Bay Street is in the middle of a\nuniform front yard set back of 34 and 37 feet; many neighbors would\nlike to have the set back maintained; the set backs are less in the\n1200 block.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a reason why the\nporch needs to stick out beyond the roofline of the main house.\nThe Planner III responded the Applicant would like to utilize the\nfront portion by incorporating French doors; stated a porch would\nallow an opportunity to utilize more of the front yard; the design\nis appropriate for the house from a functionality standpoint.\nMayor Johnson stated having porches on the side of the houses was\ndeliberate and was the intent of the original neighborhood\ndesigners having the porch extend is not a necessary part of the\nproject front yard extensions would significantly change the\nneighborhood.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a chalk line could be drawn down the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 13, "text": "street ; the historic context of the street should have been\nevaluated by the HAB rather than a Design Review.\nThe Planner III stated the 1200 block of Bay Street has set backs\nof approximately 30 feet or less; approximately twelve homes near\n1150 Bay Street maintain the 34-37 foot set back; the west side of\nBay Street does not have a uniform set back.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether 1115, 1128, 1134, and 1160 Bay\nStreet have less than a 30 foot set back and have porches with\nsimilar designs.\nThe Planner III responded 1232 and 1114 Bay Street have a set back\nless than 34-37 feet; stated that he cannot confirm set backs for\nthe other houses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of granting the appeal with\nreference only to the seven-foot extension of the porch into the\nyard.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would be done with the HAB decision\nto grant a Certificate of Approval to alter more than 30% of the\nvalue of the building.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Appellant has indicated that the only\nissue is the front porch.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the motion is to uphold the appeal\nspecific to the seven feet of the front porch area.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the property owner could proceed\nif a porch was built that would not encroach seven feet.\nThe City Attorney responded that there is no legal issue with the\nfact that the design of the porch extends forward seven feet\nstated there is no set back violation in the front yard; the porch\ndesign is the issue based on the 30% value of the building or\nalternatively the variance of the side yard set back.\nlouncilmember Tam stated the Planning Board considered the design\nreview and approved the entire project, including the front porch\nand the variance for the front porch and reduced side yard set\nback.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the houses were built in a certain\nfashion and none of them have front porches; a similar issue\noccurred on Encinal Avenue; a row of three or four Victorians are\nviewed as historic.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated Councilmember Matarrese's motion is\nformulated around a seven foot set back that is legal but is based\non an appeal of a Major Design Review that is incorporated as part\nof the 30% alteration that was before the HAB; inquired whether a\nporch would be feasible without a seven foot encroachment.\nCounci lmember Matarrese stated that he is thinking of a side porch.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the porch needs to extend beyond the\nfront of the house.\nMr. Combs responded the intent is to provide cover for the entry\nsteps.\nMayor Johnson stated side porches were deliberate.\nMr. Mackensen stated the design is actually a trellis over a patio;\nthe French doors would provide light and ventilation and need to go\nout somewhere; the pillars would disappear into the shrubbery and\nwould not impose on the lawn.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she cannot support the motion; the\nPlanning Board approved the seven foot legal requirement; the\nEncinal Avenue situation is not the same; the Bay Street homes are\nnot exactly the same and create a nicely landscaped corridor which\ncan still be preserved with the proposed energy efficient\nimprovements.\nMayor Johnson seconded the motion, which FAILED by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmember Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 2.\nNoes: ouncilmember Tam - 1. Abstentions: Vice Mayor deHaan and\nCouncilmember Gilmore - 2.\nThe City Attorney stated three votes are required in order to take\naction; two Councilmembers announced conflict on the matter the\nlower [HAB] decision will stand.\n(09-097) Resolution No. 14312, \"Revising the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Alameda Police Officers Association and\nthe City of Alameda for the Period Commencing January 6, 2008 and\nEnding January 2, 2010. Adopted.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 11:27 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 11:31 p.m.\n***\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 15, "text": "The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is pleased to have an\nagreement thanked the Police Officers Association for helping with\nthe City's fiscal needs; expressed appreciation to the negotiating\nteam.\nCouncilmember Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese's appreciation to\nthe Police Officers Association and negotiating team.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(09-098) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code\nSubsection 30-4.1 (R-1, One-Family Residence Districts) of Section\n30. 4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts\nand Regulations) Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) By Deleting\nSubsection 30-4.1 in Its Entirety and Replacing with a New\nSubsection 30-4.1 to Allow Ministerial Approval of Secondary Units\non Sites Having a Single-family Dwelling and Meeting Specific\nStandards. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested clarification of the ownership\nprovision and conformance with State law.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated State law allows a city to\nrequire owner occupancy on site of a second unit; people want to\nsee the requirement in the regulations in order to preserve the\ncharacter of the single family neighborhood; an owner living on the\nsite might be more responsive to any concerns.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there would be an exception if\nan owner had to relocate for a short period of time.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Code provides an\nexception of two years.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how realistic it would be to monitor\nowner occupancy of the secondary unit; further inquired whether the\nmatter would be monitored through complaints.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded complaints would be one way\nto monitor; stated another way would be to send out annual\ncertification letters.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 16, "text": "Counci lmember Gilmore inquired what would be the penalty for non-\ncompliance.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded staff would need to come\nback to Council for a monetary penalty; stated initially,\nenforcement action would be taken; ultimately, citations would be\nissued which would be difficult.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether an owner would need to\nensure that a person buying a property would live on the site;\nfurther inquired whether the City would advise the owner of record\nthat both units could not be rented out.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe City would require the property owner to put a deed restriction\non the property; the owner would be required to live on the site.\nCouncilmember Gilmore suggested that the owner-occupancy\nrequirement be removed.\nCouncilmembers Matarrese and Tam concurred with Councilmember\nGilmore.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff would bring back the\nordinance with the wner-occupancy requirement removed, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson clarified that the motion included removal of the\nowner occupied requirement.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated Standard T would be removed.\n(09-099) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the\nAlameda Municipal Code Contained in Chapter II Article I Pertaining\nto City Council Meetings, Chapter II Article II Pertaining to the\nHistorical Advisory Board, and Amending Ordinance No. 1082 As\nAmended by Ordinance No. 2497 Pertaining to an Existing Pension\nFund. Introduced.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 17, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATION\n(09-100) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Ardella Dailey for appointment to the\nSocial Services Human Relations Board.\nADJOUNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 11:47 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\n17\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 3, 2009- -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(09-086) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9) i Name of case : Alameda Gateway Ltd. V. City of Alameda.\n(09-087) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :\nAlameda Police Officers Association (APOA)\n(09-088) Conference with Labor Negotiator (54957.6) i Agency\nNegotiator : City Attorney; Name: City Manager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Litigation, Council\nreceived a briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction to Legal\nCounsel regarding its defense; regarding APOA, Council received a\nbriefing from its Labor Negotiators regarding the status of\nContract negotiations and regarding City Manager, Council provided\nnegotiating parameters to Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 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\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 3, 2009-7:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:47 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nChair Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09-07] were\npulled from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCommissioner 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(09-07) Minutes of the Special Joint Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority and CIC Meeting held on February 3, 2009.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated that she does not recall that the\nFa\u00e7ade Grant Program has any money; inquired whether the $800,000\nwould be split between water repairs and electrical upgrades.\nThe Development Services Director responded $150,000 would go\ntowards water repairsi $200,000 would be used from interest\nearnings from the 2003 Merged Bond to pay a portion of the $450,000\nin water repairs $200,000 would be taken from the Fleet Industrial\nSupply Center revenue and transferred to the Fa\u00e7ade Grant Program;\nthe staff report incorrectly noted $750,000 instead of $800,000.\n(*09-08) Resolution No. 08-158, \"Referring the Proposed Ninth\nAmendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and\nWaterfront Community Improvement Project and the Proposed Seventh\nAmendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the West End\nCommunity Improvement Project to the Planning Board for Report and\nRecommendation and to the Economic Development Commission for\nReview and Consideration. Adopted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(09-09) Update on the Alameda Landing Project and presentation by\nCatellus.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 20, "text": "The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\n***\n(09-10) - Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past midnight.\nMayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by the following\nvoice vote - Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nChair Johnson - 4: Noes Commissioner Tam - 1.\nTom Marshall, Catellus Managing Director, gave a brief update.\nCommissioner deHaan stated seeing Target in the mix is nice; that\nhe is fearful of a stand-alone project; surrounding businesses\nwould be cookie cutter in nature.\nMr. Marshall stated just having a Target makes no economic sense;\nTarget is an important component to the project; a collective\ndecision needs to be made regarding moving forward with Target or\ndo nothing at all.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what safe guards are in place to\nensure a necessary level of development.\nMr. Marshall responded the site plan is an old site plan that has\nTarget laid out with the rest of the center; stated the rest of the\ncenter is in jeopardy, which is a temporary situation.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated whatever is built would still\nneed to comply with the Site Plan; the Disposition and Development\nAgreement has timelines; default would occur if development did not\noccur within the timelines and the project would be taken back and\nremarketed to a different developer; a market cannot be guaranteed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated check off points need to be met; retail\ntypes need to be reviewed; focus cannot be lost.\nMr. Marshall stated tenant enthusiasm has cut back within the last\nnine months; having a Target partially pays for the Webster\nStreet/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell Project.\nCommissioner deHaan stated check off points need to be met; that he\ndoes not want to have Target surrounded by tumbleweeds.\nCommissioner Matarrese concurred with Commissioner deHaan;\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 21, "text": "requested continual updates on milestones.\nMr. Marshall stated a Purchase and Sale Agreement could happen late\nspring and would start the Target processi a binding deal would not\nhappen until the end of the year; pursuing a Target requires a\nsignificant amount of money.\nChair Johnson stated looking at phasing adjustments makes sense;\nthat she is not hearing that Catellus is giving up on the rest of\nthe project Target is an important tenant.\nMr. Marshall stated Catellus has an alternative first phase and\nviews the project as mixed use.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be the projected Target revenues,\nto which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\napproximately $225,000.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether Target would be approximately\n80,000 square feet, to which Mr. Marshall responded a little\nlarger.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether Clif Bar is still\na\npossibility.\nMr. Marshall responded that Clif Bar is pursuing another\nopportunity on the Island and got caught up in the peanut recall.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether Catellus has no funding for the\nWebster Street/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell Project unless the Target\nproject moves forward, at which point Catellus would be able to\nleverage and capitalize the infrastructure for the street or\ndemolition and horizontal infrastructure to provide service for\nTarget.\nMr. Marhsall responded Catellus' obligation to complete\nimprovements to support retail commences when demolition starts;\nthe Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell Project is required to\nfor retail; Catellus' commitment is commensurate to the amount of\ninitial retail.\nCommissioner deHaan stated times are tough; open communication is\nvery important; Catellus is important to the City.\nMr. Marshall stated that Sean Whiskeman, Catellus Vice President,\nis a good resource for specific questions regarding retail.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-03", "page": 22, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\n(09-11) - There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe meeting at 12:17 a.m. in memory of former Police Officer Robert\nDavey, Jr.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nMarch 3, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-03.pdf"}