2007-01-16 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - JANUARY 16, 2007- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:19 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(07 -021) Proclamation expressing appreciation to Rich Teske for
his twenty -six years of service on the Rent Review Advisory
Committee.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Rich Teske.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of the proclamation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which passed by
consensus.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Joining the Statewide
Community Infrastructure Program [paragraph no. 07 -0301 was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the
December 5, 2006 minutes.]
Councilmember deHaan thanked Alameda Power & Telecom and Fire
Department for the review and recommendation on the sale of
emergency generators [paragraph no. *07 -028].
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number.]
( *07 -022) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on December 5, 2006, and the Special and Regular City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
January 16, 2007
Council Meetings held on January 2, 2007. Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Tam abstained from voting on the December 5, 2006
minutes.]
( *07 -023) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,619,985.25.
( *07 -024) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
( *07 -025) Recommendation to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk for
the Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 26, No. P.W.
03- 06 -08. Accepted.
( *07 -026) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Crosswalk In- Pavement Lights at Various
Locations in the City of Alameda, No. P. W. 07- 04 -07, Federal ID:
STPLH -5014 (025). Accepted.
( *07 -027) Recommendation to appropriate $157,000 in Sewer
Enterprise Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $562,000,
including contingencies, to Pacific Liners Pipeline Rehabilitation
for the Citywide Sewer Mains and Laterals Video Inspection, No.
P.W. 10- 06 -21. Accepted.
( *07 -028) Resolution No. 14057, "Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electrical Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000." Adopted.
( *07 -029) Resolution No.
from Tiburon,
Charter for
$66,545.00."
14058, "Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Inc. Pursuant to Section 3 -15 of the Alameda City
a Mobile Data System Upgrade in the Amount of
Adopted.
(07 -030) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14059, "Joining
the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program and Authorizing the
California Statewide Communities Development Authority to Accept
Applications from Property Owners, Conduct Special Assessment
Proceedings and Levy Assessments Within the Territory of the City
of Alameda and Authorizing Related Actions." Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Program would apply to
small -scale development.
The Business Development Division Manager responded anyone could
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
January 16, 2007
participate; stated usually, a $250,000 to $300,000 threshold is
needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City ever carried bonds
before.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the City has
never carried bonds for private development.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether other communities have a high
participation level.
The Business Development Division Manager responded the Program is
new; stated there is no cost; a lot of cities have joined because
the Program provides an economic tool for future development.
Mayor Johnson stated the Program is a financial tool that would
benefit the community.
Vice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *07 -031) Public hearing to consider approval of Tentative Map
Tract 7846 (TM06 -0006) for the purpose of establishing eight
residential lots within four buildings located at 626 Buena Vista
Avenue within the R -4 -PD Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development Zoning District; and
( *07 -031A) Resolution No. 14060, "Approving Tentative Map Tract
7846, TM06 -0006,
Lots within Four
Adopted.
for the Purpose of Establishing Eight Residential
Buildings Located at 626 Buena Vista Avenue."
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07 -032) Public Hearing to consider a proposal by Warmington
Homes, California for a General Plan Amendment (GP05 -002), Rezoning
(R05 -004), Master Plan (MP05 -001), Tentative Map (TM05 -002), and
adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS05 -0003) for
development of forty new, detached single- family residences, and
related utilities, streets, open space and visitor parking; and an
appeal of certain Conditions of Approval on Development Plan and
Design Review permits (PD05 -02). The project site is located at the
northwest corner of Grand Street and Fortmann Way at 2051 -2099
Grand Street;
(07 -032A) Resolution No. 14061, "Adopting the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
January 16, 2007
Grand Marina Village Development Located at the Northwest Corner of
Grand Street and Fortmann Way (State Clearinghouse #2006 -04- 2145)."
Adopted;
(07 -032B) Resolution No. 14062, "Approving General Plan Amendment
(GPA- 05 -02) for Grand Marina Village to Amend the General Plan Land
Use Diagram to Change the Designation of Approximately 8.3 Acres to
Specified Mixed Use and Amend Sections 2.2, 2.3, and 2.6 and
Associated Tables of the Land Use Element to Reflect the Specified
Mixed Use Designation." Adopted;
(07 -032C) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Property Located Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street
from M -2, General Industrial (Manufacturing) District to MX, Mixed
Use Planned Development District (MX). Introduced;
(07 -032D) Introduction of Ordinance Approving Master Plan MP05 -01
for a Mixed Use Development Including Single- Family Residential,
Recreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,
Located Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres
of Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the
Oakland Estuary. Introduced;
(07 -032E) Resolution No. 14063, "Approving Tentative Map, TM05-
0002, for Property Located Between Grand Street, Fortmann Way, and
the Oakland Estuary." Adopted; and
(07 -032F) Resolution No. 14064,
of Planned Development PD05 -02
Grand Marina Village." Adopted.
"Upholding Planning Board Approval
and Design Review DR05 -0126 for
The Supervising Planner gave a brief Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff recommends an asphalt
path.
The Supervising Planner responded staff recommends keeping the
asphalt as long as adequate width and good transitions exist
between the asphalt and other materials.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would be responsible for the
maintenance, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Grand
Marina.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether defined maintenance levels would be
required; stated the Planning Board might have thought that asphalt
would not last as long as concrete.
The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on
the Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the
landscaping and improvements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
January 16, 2007
Mayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to
Peter Wang.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require
Mr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the
Supervising Planner responded he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would
prefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure
proper maintenance.
The Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad
trail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal
Services District.
The Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the
Recreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal
Services District.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to
replicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.
The Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the
Grand Marina lease requirement; stated the Leasee would be required
to maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every
lease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that
he did not know.
The Supervising Planner stated
maintain; the Master Plan covers
make maintenance recommendations
in the Grand Marina lease.
concrete would be easier to
the entire area; Council could
and implement the recommendations
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to
erode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.
The Supervising Planner stated Council could impose a Master Plan
condition that would require that the Grand Marina residential
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
January 16, 2007
project be responsible for maintenance of the public triangular
parks; the condition could be expanded to include that the
Homeowners Association be responsible for the portions outside of
the parks.
Mayor Johnson stated the path is a public access and could become a
safety issue if the Grand Marina was not responsible for
maintenance; the path would become a problem for the City; inquired
whether agreements exist between Grand Marina and the Applicant.
The Supervising Planner responded agreements are between the City
and Mr. Wang, Warmington Homes and Mr. Wang, and Master Plan
entitlements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would have the ability
to pass on maintenance costs to the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
The Supervising Planner continued with the presentation.
The Architect provided a video presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of project appeal): David Day, Applicant; Dan
Lachman, Alameda Development Corporation.
Opponent: (Not in favor of project appeal): Richard W. Rutter,
Alameda.
Neutral: Christopher Buckley, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Applicant's comments, Mayor Johnson stated the
Bayport duplexes are very good; inquired why duplexes were not
considered for the proposed project.
The Applicant responded an attached product costs more to build
because of insurance; stated the proposed project has great
architectural quality; height diversity is good.
Mayor Johnson stated that she likes the garages in the back.
Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard complaints that the
Bayport sidewalks are not wide enough; inquired whether the
proposed sidewalks would be wide enough.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
January 16, 2007
The Supervising Planner responded public sidewalks have a five -foot
minimum width.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Bayport's sidewalks have a
five -foot minimum width, to which the Supervising Planner responded
some Bayport sidewalks are less than five feet wide.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the basic selling price for
the Bayport homes.
Mr. Lachman responded each phase has been different because of
income; the first sixteen homes sold for $273,000 based on 1100 of
area medium income; the other sixteen homes sold for $236,000 based
on 1000 of area medium income; the new phase would be $212,00 based
on 900 of area medium income.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Homeowners Association
would cover all maintenance, including the path.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she dislikes the third story pop -
ups; she appreciates Mr. Rutter's and Mr. Buckley's research; she
prefers the Murano project roofline; the Planning Board does not
like slider windows in developments; windows that have dividers
between two slabs of glass do not provide the detail and definition
for the project's caliber; she would like to add a condition that
would require windows to have dividers raised outside of the glass.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;
stated that he does not see the need for the east /west paseo that
cuts from the alleyway through Hibbard Street to the parkway; every
house could be considered waterfront property; the market rate and
affordable houses are dispersed; the development is better than
previous developments; staff could work with the Applicant on the
third floor design; the existing asphalt path does not touch the
Marina Cove development because of the wooden dock; the paseo
condition is not needed as long as the asphalt is maintained and
matches the proposed treatments in the round areas at the foot of
Hibbard Street.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
stated she wants to ensure that there is consistent width; the path
narrows at certain points; she is concerned with pedestrian safety.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the 430 square -foot third story has
any functionality beyond architectural diversity.
The Supervising Planner responded the third story provides two
additional rooms.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
January 16, 2007
Vice Mayor Tam stated Mr. Buckley proposed incorporating the third
story into the roofline.
The Supervising Planner stated staff could work with the Applicant
on roof design.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council needs to help modify the
third -story condition to be more explicit in terms of what staff is
directed to do.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Gilmore suggested using Mr.
Buckley's examples.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether direction needs to be explicit in
the condition.
Mayor Johnson responded the condition should be revised to make the
changes explicit; stated the design changes are significant;
inquired whether the design changes should go back to the Planning
Board for review.
The Supervising Planner responded staff could work with the
Applicant; stated residential guidelines do not address new three -
story buildings, only additions.
Mayor Johnson stated the changes are not small.
The Applicant stated Mr. Buckley referenced a Centax project where
the third floors go from side to side; one side has a three -story
wall and the other side has a two -story wall in the current design;
the third -floor pop -up would be closer to the street.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the Murano project design better.
The Applicant stated a jewel box design was used.
Councilmember deHaan stated more space could be gained with the
Murano project design.
The Applicant stated he would prefer to work with staff and not go
back to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has concerns with the material
used at Bridgeside; staff needs to review material consistency;
inquired whether common areas are part of 2,000 square -foot lots,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
January 16, 2007
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the project is contrary to
Measure A.
The Supervising Planner responded the project is consistent with
Measure A, the City Charter, and the General Plan; stated every
parcel is at least 2,000 square feet; all forty parcels have some
form of public access easement; the overall project is well within
Measure A density requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is breaking new ground.
The Supervising Planner stated the project design is intended to
maximize public open space; the tradeoff is smaller lots.
Councilmember deHaan stated the paseos work because of lot
configurations but is not something he would highly recommend.
The Supervising Planner stated the project provides an opportunity
to try a small lot subdivision; the project was completely
redesigned after the Planning Board study sessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why palm trees are planned for
Hibbard Street instead of full trees.
The Supervising Planner responded palm trees need to be removed;
stated the plan is to reuse the trees and align Hibbard Street to
eventually come through the Pennzoil site and connect with the
Marina Cove development.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the plan for the rest of the
street.
The Supervising Planner stated the trees can be extended down
Hibbard Street; a decision would need to be made about whether or
not to continue the palm trees to the Pennzoil site.
Councilmember deHaan stated past Planning Board discussions have
addressed palm trees not providing enough shade; he would prefer
not to have palm trees.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would like to have staff review
how the houses front Grand Street; staff and the Applicant should
ensure the design is detailed, not bland.
The Supervising Planner stated Council could modify the condition
to include the Grand Street elevations.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of landscaping would be provided
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
January 16, 2007
on Grand Street.
The Supervising Planner responded the Homeowners Association would
provide new sidewalks and landscaping; big trees are not proposed
because of utilities.
Mr. Day stated Warmington Homes has agreed to design the third
story as close to the Murano project as possible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not see a distinction
between the market rate and affordable home designs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he sees the potential for forty
new Alameda Power & Telecom (AP &T) customers; inquired whether an
AP &T marketing plan and hookup installation could be added to the
conditions, to which the City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and
introduced ordinances with the following exceptions: 1) the
Planning Director is to work with the Applicant to redesign the
third floor pop -ups to look like the examples of the Murano project
in Cupertino, 2) directed staff to work with the Applicant and
Christopher Buckley on the Grand Street elevations, 3) eliminate
slider windows, and 4) AP &T be installed and marketed similar to
the Alameda Landing project.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07 -033) Consideration of an appeal of the Public Works Director's
decision to deny a request to remove eight street trees along 2101
Shoreline Drive in accordance with City's Master Tree Plan.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which the Public Works Director responded
approximately ten to twenty units.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired when the trees were last pruned.
The Public Works Director responded approximately seven years ago;
stated the Tree Pruning Program funding was reduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal): Robert Matz, The Directly Affected
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
January 16, 2007
Homeowners, Don Patterson, Alameda. Betty Snider, Alameda and
Charles Moneder, Alameda (time yielded to Mr. Matz).
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal): Karen Stern, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many units are affected by the
eight trees, to which Mr. Matz responded twenty.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the units are two- story.
Mr. Matz responded in the affirmative; stated the entrance is on
the second story; the bedrooms are downstairs.
Councilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive has a variety of trees;
some Grand Street trees have been replaced by the homeowners;
inquired whether the replanted trees are proper.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated he has
been working with the City Attorney's office on drafting a letter
to the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what type of trees would be planted.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Master Plan allows for
three different types; stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is the
preferred tree.
Councilmember deHaan stated the trees vary in height and fullness;
inquired whether the Tree Trimming Program is in force.
The Public Works Director responded the Tree Trimming Program
allows for tree pruning every five years when funding is available;
stated recently Council restored the funding; catch -up needs to be
done; residents are required to get tree trimming permits; not all
residents obtained permits; enforcement is difficult.
Councilmember deHaan stated some of the Shoreline Drive trees have
been pruned severely.
The Public Works Director stated the New Zealand Christmas Tree is
very hardy and comes back rapidly.
Councilmember deHaan stated unauthorized tree pruning is concerning
because trees are important to the City.
The Public Works Director stated that he does not have the staff to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
January 16, 2007
police tree pruning; residents deny knowledge of tree trimming.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether tree infill plans are
underway, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the rest of Alameda would be impacted
by how trees are infilled.
Vice Mayor Tam stated Ms. Guthrie invited her to view the trees and
visit Mr. Matz's unit; some residents have chopped the trees;
inquired whether the trees could be moved.
The Public Works Director responded he was not sure whether the
trees would remain healthy; stated the move would be very
expensive.
Councilmember Gilmore stated trees grow; questioned whether the
same issue would come up in twenty years if the trees are replaced;
she does not want to get into a cycle of replacing healthy trees
periodically; the City has higher uses for money than replacing
trees cyclically.
The Public Works Director stated Mr. Matz's Master Tree Plan
reference is not the section that addresses when trees should be
removed; the section addresses how trees are selected.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a trimming and pruning option has
been suggested to increase the view line and preserve mature trees;
the Tree Master Plan needs some updating; carbon sequesters are of
greater importance; view restoration can be accomplished; now is
the time to take a second look at the Tree Master Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated sometimes mistakes are made when trees
are planted; the intent is to add more trees down Shoreline Drive
and help the eco system; street trees should be uniform; tree
infilling opportunities exist throughout the City; he is not sure
whether views would improve if the trees are replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated many trees have died and have not been
replaced; inquired whether trees are planted in existing planting
areas.
The Public Works Director responded sometimes planting cannot be
done at the same location because of the root ball; stated the Tree
Master plan has restrictions regarding planting locations.
Mayor Johnson stated the goal is to plant as many trees as
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
January 16, 2007
possible; Westline Drive and Harbor Bay waterfront areas have
existing trees; Council needs to be very careful in setting a
precedent regarding removing trees in areas with a view; concurred
with Councilmember Matarrese regarding reviewing and updating the
Master Tree Plan; inquired whether the City would do the pruning
every year at the expense of the Homeowners Association.
The Public Works Director responded the City would prune the first
and fifth year; the City would prune in the intervening years at
the homeowner's expense.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the five -year pruning policy would
be re- instituted starting this year; the City would prune the trees
down to the 25% crown with an arborist's consultation and City
funds; the City and arborist would be involved if the homeowners
wants the trees pruned within the five year interim; the cost would
be born by the homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan requested than an arborist review topping the
trees to bring the trees back into proportion.
Mayor Johnson stated the 25% crown pruning is quite substantial.
Councilmember Gilmore stated she would never vote to remove a tree
unless other options were considered; the trees are behind in the
normal pruning schedule; concurred that the Master Tree Plan needs
updating; stated coastal areas need attention; suggested reviewing
avenues for having coastal trees pruned more frequently and
involving the Homeowners Association with the pruning in the
intervening years.
Vice Mayor Tam moved approval of upholding the Public Works
Director's decision with direction for staff to work with a
certified arborist to prune the trees and reduce the height and
fullness without jeopardizing the trees and to work on updating the
Master Tree Plan.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she has lived in the area for a long time;
her front tree grew to two and a half inches in diameter in thirty
years; the City needs to be more conscious in maintaining and
pruning trees.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with additional
direction that the Master Tree Plan be reviewed by the Climate
Protection Campaign Task Force.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the Harbor Bay Trail
and Marina Village waterfront homes have no trees; clustered trees
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
January 16, 2007
are in park areas; he is concerned with the infill proposed for
Shoreline Drive.
Mayor Johnson stated trees are scattered throughout the Bay Trail
area on Harbor Bay; questioned whether the Tree Master Plan review
and update would occur before or after the proposed infill.
The Public Works Director stated carbon sequester trees would be
reviewed as part of tree placement.
Mayor Johnson stated Council should review whether fines should be
imposed if a homeowner removes a tree.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07 -034) Recommendation to approve funding request for Alameda Big
Box Study Support not to exceed $50,000 from General Fund Reserves.
The Business Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : David Howard,
Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports spending reserve
funds for infrastructure improvements; he has a hard time spending
reserve money on a study; inquired whether the study could be
funded with money budgeted elsewhere; stated that he would not
support taking the money from the General Fund Reserves.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Business
Development Manager responded all outside consultant fees have been
encumbered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether money could be used from
funds that are not encumbered yet, to which the Business
Development Manager responded in the negative.
The City Manager stated the Development Services Director is in the
process of re- evaluating the budget; opportunities do not exist to
fund the study in the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Towne Center, Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
January 16, 2007
Landing or Alameda Point funds are available; stated said areas are
relevant to the big box study.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether money could be taken from the
Planning Department impact fees.
The City Manager responded money was not budgeted for the study.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not whether money
was budgeted; the question is whether $50,000 can be taken from
another source.
The Business Development Manager responded the issue would need to
be reviewed; stated the proposed study would not be just for
Alameda Point, but the whole Island; a portion might be
appropriate, but not one hundred percent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated funds must have been budgeted to
support the projects.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated the City
has full cost recovery for the Alameda Landing project; all staff
salaries are paid by the developer; the developer funded a retail
impact analysis as part of the entitlement process for
approximately $35,000; the study led to the retail mix
recommendations.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is required
for proposals, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail impact study is different
from a big box study; stated she is surprised by the cost.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded some
goals and objections may be captured; stated the measurement would
address whether the proposed project competes with or is compatible
with existing retail.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a retail study would include other
impacts, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the first question is whether there
should be big box at all; a retail impact fee would help answer the
question; he does not approve of using General Fund Reserves for a
study.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
January 16, 2007
Councilmember deHaan stated alternate funding sources should be
reviewed; the June 2006 study replicates retail for the Towne
Center; leakage needs to be understood and impacts analyzed; it is
unknown how the proposed Borders would impact Books, Inc.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval to direct staff to identify
alternate funds and bargain the price down at the same time.
Councilmember Gilmore agreed that General Fund Reserves should not
be used for the study; stated the study should not duplicate
previous studies; all studies should be pulled together for a
complete picture.
Mayor Johnson stated the City has a City -wide Retail Strategic
Plan.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Economic Development Commission
was requested to update said plan.
Mayor Johnson questioned whether any additional information would
come out of the study.
Councilmember Gilmore questioned whether the study would provide
any new information; stated that she only wants to do a new study
if it is needed.
Vice Mayor Tam stated she had an opportunity to review the 2004
Citywide Retail policy; the County's examination of the Community
Impact analysis adds value with respect to impacts on workers,
health benefits, City services, and nearby merchants; it is hard
for a financially struggling City to justify spending reserve funds
for the study; stated she supports Councilmember Matarrese's
motion.
Councilmember Matarrese amended the motion to direct staff to
convene the Task Force and use existing studies to formulate
conclusions and recommendations that may include an additional
study if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City's retail leakage requirements
need to be in proportion to big boxes; the public should be
involved in discussions.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(07 -035) Ordinance No. 2960, "Approving Development Agreement DA-
06 -0003 By and Between the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
January 16, 2007
Corporation (Successor by Merger to Catellus Development
Corporation) Governing the Development of Up To 400,000 Square Feet
of Office Space; a 20,000 Square Foot Health Club; and 300,000
Square Feet of Retail Space or 50,000 Square Feet of Retail Space
and 370,000 Square Feet of Research and Development Space." Finally
passed.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the amendment is good and fair and
is easily understood; he appreciates the time and thought that
staff put into the amendment; proper recognition has been given to
funding the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether TDM measurements have been
determined.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
success criteria would be developed and submitted as part of the
TDM Program that would go back to the Transportation Commission and
Planning Board; stated the Transportation Commission is scheduled
to begin discussions on January 31.
Councilmember deHaan stated different traffic patterns are set with
entitlement changes; most mitigations are not just for people in
Alameda but for visitors; inquired whether the TDM would address
the issue.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
minimum TDM Phase One components were all developed as part of the
new, mixed -use project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether certain mitigations could be
resolved before developments are in place.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
developer has stated that the minimum Phase One components would
cost more than what would be collected; stated Condition 11 lays
out the Phase One TDM components and has not changed since the
project was approved on December 5.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has not heard any discussion
regarding taking care of visitors coming into Alameda or Alameda
Point.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
January 16, 2007
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam echoed Councilmember Matarrese's
commending staff.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(07 -036) David Howard, Alameda, discussed transportation and
submitted a handout on a parking institute policy brief.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(07 -037) Vice Mayor Tam announced that she attended the League of
California Cities conference and orientation for new
Councilmembers; stated approximately 440 people attended; the
sessions provided a good overview of best practices in City
governance, the Brown Act, updates on emerging legislation, and
land use policies; the Governor's newly released budget seems to be
favorable for local governments; AB 2511 compliance is an issue;
encouraged Council to participate in the July conference.
Mayor Johnson stated she has encouraged Councilmembers to attend
the July conference every year; requested that the City Clerk try
to schedule Councilmembers to attend.
The City Manager stated the conference is scheduled for July 25
through 28.
(07 -038) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Continued to February 6, 2007.
Vice Mayor Tam volunteered to serve as the League's representative.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like the opportunity to serve
also.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that she was interested in serving on the
Environmental Quality Policy Committee, which deals with emerging
regulations such as global warming.
Mayor Johnson stated former Vice Mayor Daysog also served on the
Airport Operating Committee; requested that Councilmembers let her
know their areas of interest before the next Council meeting.
(07 -039) Councilmember Matarrese stated an Alameda Power and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
January 16, 2007
Telcom (AP &T) consultant report was published in the newspaper;
requested that Council receive a briefing on decisions and
recommendations after the public workshops.
The City Manager stated the process would begin this week; the
public is invited to attend two public forums scheduled for
Thursday and Saturday; a voice over Internet protocol is one of the
consultant's recommendations; updates will be provided to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the update be provided in the
first quarter.
(07 -040) Councilmember Matarrese stated he has heard concerns that
Alameda does not have a Cultural Arts Center; he would like to have
the matter reviewed by the Public Arts Commission.
(07 -041) Councilmember deHaan stated webcasting is available but
is only utilized in the Chambers; suggested that the AP &T workshop
meetings be available to the public through webcasting.
(07 -042) Councilmember deHaan requested that Closed Session
information be released on Alameda Point negotiations.
(07 -043) Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there is a
mechanism for requiring shopping carts to have boots; stated the
boots would be helpful in limiting stray shopping cart problems at
Alameda Landing, Bridgeside, and Alameda Towne Center.
Mayor Johnson stated the Police Department has been requested to
review the issue in the past; suggested that a phone number be
placed on the shopping carts for stores to pick up carts within a
certain number of hours.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
January 16, 2007