{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 4, 2012- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:06 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-425) Proclamation Declaring the Week of September 15, 2012 as Pollution\nPrevention Week.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Doug Siden and Sharol Nelson-\nEmbry, East Bay Regional Park District.\nMs. Nelson-Embry displayed items from past coastal cleanup days; stated some of the\nsmallest items can actually be quite pervasive and damaging to the environment and\nanimals.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, Ms. Nelson-Embry stated nurdles are\nused to make hard plastics and also come from bigger pieces of plastic; noted plastic\nnever really goes away.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated smokers should not litter cigarette butts.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-426) Ken Peterson, Alameda, made suggestions regarding the City's budget;\noutlined how much the City should actually be spending.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the resolution extending the vehicle abatement program\n[paragraph no. 12-437 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 2, "text": "5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-427) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on June 26, 2012; the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings Held on July 3, 2012; and the Special City\nCouncil Meetings and Regular City Council Meeting Held on July 17, 2012. Approved.\n(*12-428) Ratified bills in the amount of $17,391,910.94.\n(*12-429) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $269,700, Including\nContingencies, to Pacheco Brothers for Landscape Maintenance of Median Strips and\nSpecial Areas, No. P.W. 05-12-11. Accepted.\n(*12-430) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $53,328, Including\nContingencies, to Universal Building Services for Janitorial Service in City Buildings, No.\nP.W. 05-12-12. Accepted.\n(*12-431) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $89,490, Including\nContingencies, to Prime Mechanical for Annual Heating, Ventilating, and Air\nConditioning Systems Maintenance in Various City Facilities, No. P.W. 05-12-13.\nAccepted.\n(*12-432) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $608,600, Including\nContingencies, to Rosas Brothers Construction for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete\nSidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2012-13,\nPhase 13, No. P.W. 04-12-08. Accepted.\n(*12-433) Recommendation to Accept the Work of Gallagher and Burk, Inc. for the City\nof Alameda Various Streets Rehabilitation Project (Central Avenue), No. P.W. 02-09-04.\nAccepted.\n(*12-434) Recommendation to Approve an Agreement Between the Department of the\nArmy and the City of Alameda for the Bay Farm Island Shoreline Protection Study,\nProvide a Local Match of $360,000, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute all\nRequired Documents. Accepted.\n(*12-435) Recommendation to Accept $1,763,754 Grant from the Staffing for Adequate\nFire and Emergency Response Program (SAFER). Accepted.\n(*12-436) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Enter into\na Purchase Agreement for the Replacement of a Fire Department Ambulance.\nAccepted.\n(12-437) Resolution No. 14727, \"Extending the Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Program\nuntil May 31, , 2023.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember deHaan commended the Police Department for improvements in the\nabandoned vehicle program; noted areas such as Clement Street have improved;\nstated concerns regarding recreational vehicles have been addressed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated enforcement has been improved since the Council\npassed an Ordinance recently; noted the resolution is regarding participation in a\nprogram which the City has participated in for 20 years.\nUrged Council to review how the program works before adopting the resolution; stated\ndue process is not allowed prior to towing; discussed the regulations and committees\nresponsible for due process: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore requested a brief overview of the steps taken to abate vehicles.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation on the process.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the warrant process is different from the abatement\nprocess.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated people are given notices about the\nupcoming abatement; Ms. Gottstein was given a couple extensions; staff works with\npeople in tough situations.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested a brief explanation of the program; stated the\nresolution addresses participation in the program and does not define the City's\nprocess.\nThe Police Chief stated the program provides funding for Alameda and a number of\norganizations throughout Alameda County; funding comes through the Department of\nMotor Vehicles (DMV); the resolution does not have to do with the City's process and is\njust a funding mechanism for the program for the next ten years.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous vote - 5.\n(*12-438) Resolution No. 14728, \"Approving an Amendment to the City of Alameda\nExecutive Management Compensation Plan Established by Resolution 14699, to\nEstablish Salary and Benefits for the City Clerk.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(12-439) Public Hearing to: 1) Consider An Appeal of the Planning Board's Decision to\nDeny a Use Permit Amendment to Allow the Existing Convenience Store at the 76 Gas\nStation Located at 1716 Webster Street to Sell Beer and Wine;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 4, "text": "(12-439A) Resolution No. 14729, \"Upholding Planning Board Resolution PB-12-04\nPlanning Action to Deny Modified Use Permit PLN10-0153 to Allow the Sale of Alcohol\nat a Convenience Store Located at 1716 Webster Street.\" Adopted; and\n(12-439B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 30-4.9A of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code Related to the C-C, Community Commercial Zone. Introduced.\nThe Acting City Planner gave a brief presentation and provided a revised resolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired why the Zoning Text Amendment ordinance is part of\nthe same report as the appeal; stated that she does not think the ordinance should have\nbeen part of the report; people looking at the report might not realize changes are being\nmade to the City's Zoning Ordinances.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the items are together because both were\ngenerated by the Applicant's desire to redevelop; stated the Zoning Amendment is\nnecessary if the property owner is going to redevelop the site; the actions are separate.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether notice people would expect the\nordinance change to would be part of a staff report on a project.\nThe Acting City Planner stated items could be separate in the future.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Park Street Business Association (PSBA) weighed\nin on the matter.\nThe Acting City Planner responded PSBA weighed in on the Zoning Text Amendment,\nwhich changes the CC zoning and affects Park Street as well as Webster Street; stated\nthat he believes PSBA also supports the applicant's request to allow the alcohol sales.\nUrged approval of the appeal and stated that it was unknown why the original restriction\non selling alcohol was present: Daniel Hoy, Project Architect, representing Delong Hu\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA) opinion, Mr. Hoy stated WABA supports the appeal and would like\nto see as many business opportunities on the street as possible.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about a Park Street project, to which the Acting City\nPlanner responded the project was a convenient store and issues were related to\ncigarette sales.\nMayor Gilmore provided background information on the Park Street location; inquired\nabout neighbors' comments at Planning Board hearings.\nThe Acting City Planner responded neighbors were concerned about adding more\nalcohol sales in that immediate neighborhood; neighbors noted there are a large\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 5, "text": "number of stores and liquor outlets right around the corner and in the immediate vicinity;\nof the 13 places to buy alcohol in the Webster Street corridor, five locations are right\nwithin a block of the location; alcohol can also be purchased at 22 bars and restaurants;\nneighbors also felt there is a correlation between alcohol sales and crime in the area.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the City is going to prohibit other places from\nselling alcohol; stated if so, a policy should be made so the City does not appear to be\narbitrary.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the Use Permit process allows the City to address\nthe matter on a case-by-case basis.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether or not it would be better to let people know\nthe City's position is that there are enough places selling alcohol and more will not be\nallowed.\nThe Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated an agreement would need\nto be reached on how to structure the zoning to make the right number clear; stated a\nquota is one approach some cities have taken for different uses; clear standards could\nbe applied uniformly if an agreement could be reached; the counter argument is that\nsetting a limit or quota might prohibit a better business and essentially does not let the\nmarket do its thing; said matters were discussed at a Planning Board meeting regarding\na Chinese restaurant; the decision was quotas would not be set for Park and Webster\nStreets.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the same discussion came up about tattoo parlors; inquired\nwhether the Arco convenient store on Park Street and Encinal sells beer and wine, to\nwhich the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a Use Permit was required for the Arco station\nand whether radius and saturation were reviewed.\nThe Acting City Planner responded that he does not know said history; stated Use\nPermits are required for all convenient stores in Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he recalls the Webster Street Visioning discussions\nabout the transition from a Navy town loaded with bars; the area seems to be a hub of\nPolice activity; inquired if staff has determined whether liquor sales are a factor.\nThe Police Captain responded the City has had a slight increase in crime on the West\nEnd and on the blocks surrounding Webster Street in the last year; that he could not say\nthe crime is directly related to alcohol sales.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there are loitering problems.\nThe Police Captain responded any liquor store would have people loiter; noted Alcohol\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 6, "text": "Beverage Control (ABC) licenses always have a condition that the owner will allow\nloitering on the premises.\nThe Deputy City Manager provided background information on ABC licenses; noted\ntrying to get a license revoked is almost impossible.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how much of an economic disadvantage is caused\nfrom not selling alcohol; questioned whether gas stations have to compete with other\nstores.\nMr. Hoy responded the property owner met with a major convenient store operator;\nstated an analysis was done regarding the store size and necessary proportion of the\nstore which should be dedicated to beer and wine; the amount was substantial.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether staff had more information about PSBA's and\nWABA's positions.\nThe Acting City Planner responded that he could not remember WABA's and PSBA's\nreasoning other than wanting to support a local business person; noted that he did talk\nwith the organizations extensively about the Zoning Text Amendment.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated WABA and PSBA want operational consistency.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether WABA and PSBA specifically referred to the issues\nof alcohol saturation, residential concerns, and crime, to which the Acting City Planner\nresponded in the negative.\nMr. Hoy noted during the Webster Street Vision Study, WABA supported bringing in all\ntypes of businesses.\nMayor Gilmore stated the current situation is not broad based; lots of businesses on\nWebster already sell alcohol; WABA and PSBA want more businesses and speak for\nmembers and not necessarily residents of the neighborhood; stated there are probably\nfewer convenient stores on Park Street which sell alcohol than Webster Street; that she\nis concerned permitting the easiest businesses would not necessarily attract the best\nbusinesses.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City needs gas stations and gas stations are not\nallowed in residential areas; questioned whether gas stations would survive without full\nconvenience stores.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the gas station across the street from the project sells\nalcohol; if not, perhaps approval would cause the station to want to sell alcohol also.\nThe Acting City Planner responded alcohol is not sold at the gas station convenience\nstore across the street.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether other gas stations on Webster Street sell\nalcohol.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the five liquor stores in the immediate vicinity are\nnot at gas stations.\nCouncilmember Tam noted the new gas stations at Nob Hill, Safeway and Harbor Bay\ndo not have liquor sales.\nThe Acting City Planner noted the Planning Board was concerned about whether the\nproject approval would set a precedent and other businesses would also ask to sell\nliquor.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the revised resolution [and introduction of the\nordinance].\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nThe Acting City Planner noted staff would re-notice the Zoning Text Amendment and\nbring back the second reading in a month.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-440) The City Manager announced that the extended agenda deadlines have been\nin place for a year; some members of the public are still unaware of the extended\nnoticing requirement; urged the public to look at what the Council is considering and\ncontact elected officials with opinions or contact staff with questions prior to meetings;\nstated the noticing allows the Council to have a well-informed discussion of items.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-441) Councilmember deHaan expressed concern with the condition of the Webster\nTube railing; further stated the Planning Board reviews upcoming items and perhaps the\nCouncil should do so.\nADJOURNMENT\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 8, "text": "There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-09-04", "page": 9, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 4, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:17 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-424) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Pursuant to Subdivision\n(a) of Section 54956.9); Name of Case: SCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of\nAlameda, et al.; U.S. District Court Case No CV-10-5178; this is to discuss strategy\nregarding a lawsuit brought by our former developer, SunCal, based on the Exclusive\nNegotiating Agreement.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that Council gave direction to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 4, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-09-04.pdf"}