body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.
Member Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community
Planning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and
Collateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from
Private Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to
which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair
Johnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point
Collaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.
Chair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from
the SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director
explained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City
and that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay
any invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and
APC.
Doug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple
times to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and
payments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit
against SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal
required APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.
Chair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to
which Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through
the binding arbitration process.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,2,"Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000
on an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like
to require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.
Member Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,
and of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member
Gilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs
information into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained
that the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.
Traditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for
Alameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning
cost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available
funding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.
Speakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for
the pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their
remedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also
requested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not
proprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on
Nov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of
the activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the
record of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of
a cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to
recommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment
of Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is
taking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request
for Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and
infrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-11-03,3,ARRA Secretary,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER - 3, 2010- -7:01 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:26 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 & ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 10-526]; the Agreement
with Gates + Associates [paragraph no. 10-528]; and the Second Contract Amendment
with Suarez and Munoz Construction [paragraph no. 10-529 were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
(10-526) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of October 13, 2010; and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings of October 19, 2010. Approved.
Councilmember Tam stated the October 19, 2010 minutes note that the Public
Employee Evaluation item was cancelled; inquired whether the matter would be
rescheduled, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the October 13th minutes.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the October 19th minutes.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,2,"Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Abstentions:
Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2.
(*10-527) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,493,347.67.
(10-528) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement in
the Amount of $284,800 with Gates + Associates for an Urban Greening Plan, including
a Parks Master Plan.
In response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the Urban
Greening Planning Grant totals $250,000; $140,000 would be budgeted for a Parks
Master Plan; staff recommends augmenting an Urban Farm and Garden Plan.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired why $7,800 would need to be taken from the Golf
Enterprise Fund.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the money would pay for
Gates + Associates to look at a tree palate for the Golf Course.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is uncomfortable spending $140,000 from the
General Fund when swimming pool upgrade costs are unknown; the pools are a must
have.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the Emma Hood swimming pool is up and
running; now, efforts are focusing on a solution for the Encinal swimming pool.
Mayor Johnson stated the Urban Greening Plan and swimming pool issues have never
been an either or situation.
The Interim City Manager stated $140,000 would not solve the swimming pool
problems; a Park Master Plan has become compelling because the City has so many
disparate parks and facilities; a Park Master Plan would calculate an impact fee for new
development; the Urban Greening Plan is a compelling document; inventory needs to
be done to ensure the best use of property.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands the total budget for the swimming
pools could exceed millions of dollars; her concern is that the City does not know how
much it will cost to get to a stop-gap measure for opening and using the Encinal
swimming pool until a long-term solution is found; that she does not have a problem
completing the $284,800 Parks Master Plan but has concerns regarding the Farmer D
and Public Health Law & Policy (PHLP) items; she considers the two items as ""nice to
have"".
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Farmer D item includes growing trees for street
tree inventory.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,3,"The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Farmer D item would
also include using some of the existing, vacant, undeveloped park land for community
gardens.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Urban Greening Plan
grant cannot be just for a Park Master Plan; the urban agricultural component plays an
integral part in receiving the grant.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is one-time money in excess of $1
million to for field turf.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the aggregate amount is
$3 million.
Councilmember Matarrese stated including the $140,000 would be a good idea to get
things going; the $3 million is a buffer; having a tree farm is a benefit; the Littlejohn Park
redwood trees purchased from an outside vendor are smaller than those that came from
the Alameda Point Collaborative nursery.
The Interim City Manager stated swimming pool repairs are not going to be paid solely
by the City.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired how Kemper Sports would be involved with the landscape
planning.
The Interim City Manager responded the Golf Course is a recreational facility and an
Enterprise Fund; stated the City is in negotiations with Kemper Sports; staff could look
for other ways to come up with $7,800 if Council does not want the money to come out
of the Golf Enterprise Fund.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether part of the Kemper negotiations would include
landscape planning, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the landscape planning cost should be paid out of the Golf
Enterprise Fund and reimbursed by Kemper Sports.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Golf Commission has been consulted on the
matter, to which the Golf Commission Chair responded in the negative.
Councilmember Tam stated Council assumes that Kemper Sports would take over
landscape planning which includes the storm water management problem and
identifying a tree palate that could use recycled water.
The Recreation and Park Director stated said items would be included in negotiations
now; the current tree palate cannot use recycled water.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,4,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated this summer, the trees survived with recycled water; the
recycled water is a better quality.
In Response to Councilmember Tam's comments regarding the plan helping the School
District prioritize, the Interim City Manager stated later on tonight, Council will have an
opportunity to discuss approving a Joint Use Agreement [paragraph no. 10-536
including School District property and recreational parks and facilities could be
discussed.
Councilmember Gilmore stated swimming pools should be part of the Master Plan if the
City is going to have responsibility for pools.
The Interim City Manager stated the Master Plan could be amended to augment School
District facilities.
Speaker: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether adding [Golf Course] landscape planning now would
be cost effective, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the City could negotiate reimbursement with Kemper Sports.
The Interim City Manager stated [Golf Course] landscape planning has been included
because staff would like to expand the tree inventory.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Golf Course trees were assessed; inquired whether the
proposed landscape planning would not be folded into the overall tree philosophy.
The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is vital; the
Golf Course portion could be taken out in order to not hold up the Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated going forward makes sense; reimbursing the City [for $7,800]
could be part of the Kemper Sports negotiations.
Councilmember Tam stated that she is hearing two conflicting factual statements: 1)
Kemper Sports is already providing reports to the Golf Commission and has a
landscaping plan, and 2) Kemper Sports is not doing so now and the City would have to
negotiate; the City would save some money by taking $7,800 out of the Golf Enterprise
Fund to help fund the Plan.
The Recreation and Park Director stated Kemper Sports is performing a general review
of the trees to see which trees are diseased; there is no comprehensive, concerted
effort to develop a tree palate.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he would prefer to take out the $7,800 and move
forward; the landscaping plan could be included as part of Kemper Sports negotiations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,5,"Mayor Johnson stated the $7,800 could be added as a requirement to Kemper Sports'
obligations if the City negotiates a long-term lease; otherwise, the City would have to
hire someone else at a higher price.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired where the $140,000 would come from, to which the
Interim City Manager responded the Park Administration Program of the General Fund.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Park Administration budget includes
consulting services, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with an
amendment to not have the $7,800 come from the Golf Course fund.
Councilmember Tam stated that she can support the motion; inquired whether the total
Contract amount would be $276,900.
The Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the Contract amount
would stay the same; the funding source would be different.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether she is hearing that the
Contract amount would be $284,800.
Councilmember Tam responded the contract amount would be $284,800; the Golf
Enterprise Fund would not be touched.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion is to approve the $397,800 [total
budget for the Urban Greening Plan] or $284,800.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified that the motion is approval of appropriating
$397,800 for all three components, having the $7,800 come from someplace other than
the Golf Enterprise Fund, and obtaining $7,800 reimbursement from Kemper Sports.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:
Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers
Gilmore and Tam - 2.
(10-529) Recommendation to Approve a Second Contract Amendment in the Amount of
$110,000 to Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street/Wilver ""Willie""
Stargell Avenue Intersection Project - Landscape & Irrigation Improvements, No. P.W.
06-09-18.
The City Engineer reviewed items noted in an email from Bike Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,6,"Councilmember Gilmore stated the Plans and Specifications seem to be different than
what has been constructed; inquired whether the source of the discrepancy has been
discovered and what has been done to ensure that the situation does not happen again.
The City Engineer responded costs were less because the contractor is a landscape
and concrete contractor; stated the bicycle paths meet Caltrans' standard, which is an
eight-foot paved pathway with two-foot shoulders on each side; the bicycle paths do not
meet what Bike Alameda expected.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the ten-foot paved pathway was in the Plans
and Specifications.
The City Engineer responded in the negative; stated the design engineer interpreted the
bicycle path as a eight-foot paved pathway with two-foot shoulders on each side.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff would be more specific in the future.
The City Engineer responded staff and the consultant reached out to many
stakeholders; stated Caltrans has standards regarding travel lanes and medium width;
Bike Alameda wanted a bicycle lane and pedestrian path; Mariner Square Loop was
looking at access to their facility; Catellus was looking at turn pockets; in the future, staff
needs to review all stakeholder requests to ensure that everything is checked off; the
Fifth Street bicycle lane cannot go down to Webster Street; staff feels people would be
placed in a dangerous situation; Caltrans does not allow bicycle lanes down Webster
Street; staff is looking into having a bicycle path down Neptune Park in the future.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated light stanchions sit outside the eight-foot pathway; extending
the pathway by two feet would not provide full usage because the light stanchions would
be in the middle.
The City Engineer stated the City cannot go toward Caltrans property because Caltrans
has a separation requirement between any pedestrian or bicycle facility and roadways;
originally, lights were in the landscape strips and needed to be moved because of a
large storm drain line; some areas would be ten-feet wide; other areas would be nine
and a half feet wide; the concrete pad would be level.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether light poles would be in the middle of the bike paths, to
which the City Engineer responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City has a ten-foot standard.
The City Engineer responded in the negative; stated the City uses the Caltrans'
standard.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the cost for widening the path to ten
feet, to which the City Engineer responded approximately $20,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,7,"The Public Works Director stated right now, the path is eight feet wide with a two-foot
shoulder; Bike Alameda wants o widen the path; Caltrans has agreed to allow widening
the path by two feet but will not allow the path to be designated as a combination
bike/pedestrian path; five locations would have a nine and a half foot wide path.
Councilmember Gilmore stated pedestrian and bicyclist safety is the main reason for
widening the existing bicycle/pedestrian path.
The Public Works Director stated staff could come back at the next Council meeting
with the Bicycle Master Plan; after adoption, staff would meet with the Transportation
Commission and Bike Alameda; any standard deviations would be provided to the
Transportation Commission and Bike Alameda before coming back to Council.
Speaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -
5.
(*10-530) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for the City Elevator Maintenance and Repairs, No. P. W. 10-10-28. Accepted.
(*10-531) Resolution No. 14503, ""Ratifying Award of a Contract Pursuant to Section 3-
15.2 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount of $223,100, Including Contingencies,
to Mountain Cascade to Pipeburst Existing 14 Inch VCP Storm Drain Pipe and Replace
with a 16 Inch HDPE Pipe on Eighth Street, Between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln
Avenue."" Adopted.
(*10-532) Ordinance No. 3024, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding
Subsection 23-8 (Encroachments Upon Public Property Prohibited)."" Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10-533) Address Questions from the September 21, 2010 Regular City Council
Meeting Regarding Alameda Fire Department's Emergency Medical Service Delivery.
The Acting Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the transport cost, to which the Acting Fire Chief
responded $1,700; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many firefighters would be on duty every day now
versus contracting out.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,8,"The Acting Fire Chief responded twenty-four firefighters; stated the minimum would be
eighteen.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how response times and requests for mutual aid
would be affected if ALS service was not provided and staff decreased.
The Acting Fire Chief responded tactics and strategy would need to be adjusted; stated
dropping to 18 firefighters could provide more risk; the City would need to rely more
heavily on mutual aid.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired how many firefighters are dispatched when a call
comes in, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded eighteen.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether only one call would be able to be handled at
a
time, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; continued the
presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the delta between staffing eighteen firefighters
versus twenty-four firefighters, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded ambulance
staffing; continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Fire Department has an average, actual
response time, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded internal standards are eight
minutes for the ambulance and five minutes for first responders.
Mayor Johnson inquired where a stroke patient would be transported to, to which the
Acting Fire Chief responded County protocol requires cardiovascular or stroke patients
to be transported to Alameda Hospital first.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda Hospital is a stroke center, to which the
Acting Fire Chief responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired where other communities send stroke patients, to which the
Acting Fire Chief responded certified stroke centers.
Councilmember Tam stated when she was on the Hospital Board, the County policy
was to take cardiovascular patients to the closest facility that has an emergency room;
stroke patients are stabilized first and then transported to an emergency center.
Mayor Johnson stated seconds count; the longer a patient goes without proper care, the
worse the damage; unfortunately, the protocol for Alameda residents is to go to
Alameda Hospital for stabilization and then a stroke center; Alameda County
establishes the protocol; inquired whether there are designated cardiac centers, to
which the Acting Fire Chief responding Summit Hospital is a designed cardiac center.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether cardiac patients need to go to Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,9,"Hospital first.
The Acting Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated paramedics have twelve lead
monitors; the monitors are connected to a cellular phone and goes directly to Summit
Hospital; a doctor reads the AKG and determines whether the patient needs to be
transported to Summit Hospital immediately for intervention.
Mayor Johnson requested a presentation on EMS protocols [transport].
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Hospital might be the fastest transport if there is
traffic.
The Acting Fire Chief stated people could request to be taken to a stroke center.
Mayor Johnson stated people are not aware of the option.
Councilmember Matarrese stated someone told him that a stroke patient could request
to be taken to a stroke center, but paramedics will take the stroke patient to Alameda
Hospital; the issue needs to be clarified; the protocol might need to be changed if it is
not in the best interest of the people of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson suggested having someone from the County Health Care District at a
future presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether paramedics ask a stroke victim where they would
like to be transported, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded the policy is not set by
the Fire Department.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether stroke victims are advised that they are not being
transported to a stroke center.
The Acting Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is bound by policy to take stroke
victims to Alameda Hospital; stated stroke victims are asked which hospital they want to
be transported to; adult trauma patients are transported to Highland Hospital; child
trauma patients are transported to Children's Hospital.
The Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a chart classifying ALS calls.
The Acting Fire Chief continued the presentation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls hiring an outside consultant to do a
study of the Fire Department; inquired what happened to the study.
The Interim City Manager responded the outside consultant stopped short of a draft
because he was unable to complete the report and recommended not going forward
until the County was able to provide detailed information on how the $830,000 would be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,10,"allocated and how the Health Services Agency management would change.
*
Councilmember Tam left the dais at 9:50 p.m. and returned at 9:53 p.m.
*
(10-534) Receive a Report on Paramedics Plus Value Added Equipment and Services
for Alameda County Advanced Life Support First Responders.
The Acting Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Paramedics Plus would supply the Fire Department
with medications, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded Paramedics Plus would
provide medical supplies, not medications.
Mayor Johnson stated providing medications on a Countywide basis would make sense.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Fire Department has defibrillators
The Acting Fire Chief responded the Fire Department has twelve defibrillators;
Paramedics Plus would be responsible for replacing defibrillators.
Councilmember Tam stated Alameda's paramedics have a lot to be proud of in terms of
response times; requested that the Interim City Manager advise what are the next steps
on the annexation and assessment process.
The Interim City Manager stated a Closed Session has been scheduled to discuss the
issues; a draft contract has been finalized from a business standpoint; the legal parts
are now being reviewed; assuming Council approval, the goal would be to move
expeditiously in order to place the matter on the tax rolls in August for the subsequent
year.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the process is to get a contract finalized,
assuming that there will be a Closed Session on November 16th; the October 19, 2010
minutes reflect that questions were raised on the amount of cost associated with the
use of the trauma center and $140,000 first responder credit.
The Interim City Manager stated the $857,000 is the annual assessment for the City's
overhead share of the EMS agency and its proportionate share of the trauma centers;
the County committed to taking the credit for first responder engines and applying the
amount to the past, accrued deficit.
Mayor Johnson stated the County is applying the credit to the arrears.
Councilmember Tam stated the deal is great.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,11,"The Acting Fire Chief stated payment would take fifteen years and would be interest
free.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL REFERRALS
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10-535) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on
Disability Issues, Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Susan Deutsch for appointment to the Commission on
Disability Issues; and nominated Sim ""Kame"" Richards, Marine/Waterfront seat, and
Robert Robillard, Retail/Commercial seat for appointment to the EDC.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:17 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
11
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,12,,CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
WEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER - - 3, 2010--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and
Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(10-523) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
AGL V. City of Alameda.
(10-524) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:
Ottaviano V. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced
that regarding AGL, the City Council received a briefing from its attorneys and provided
direction on legal strategy; regarding Ottaviano, the City Council met in Closed Session
with Defense Counsel in the matter of Ottaviano V. City of Alameda; the parties have
agreed to settle all dispute on the matter in order to avoid further litigation costs; a copy
of the Settlement Agreement is available in the City Clerk's office; the vote to approve
the settlement was unanimous.
* *
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting at 7:45 p.m. and
reconvened the closed session at 10:45 p.m.
*
*
*
(10-525) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure
to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:
One.
Denise Eatton-May, Attorney for David Kapler, read a statement and submitted a copy
for the record.
Following the Closed Session, the meeting reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced
that regarding, Anticipated Litigation, the City Council received a briefing from Legal
Counsel on a matter of significant exposure to litigation, including a settlement proposal
from the potential claimant; the City Council provided direction to Legal Counsel and
declined to approve the settlement proposal; the decision of the City Council was
unanimous.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,14,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER 3, 2010- -7:02 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and
Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent:
None.
Agenda Item
(10-536) Recommendation to Accept a Recommendation from the Joint Subcommittee
of the City Council and the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) School Board to
Direct the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a 30-Year Agreement for
Operation, Maintenance and Capital Improvements to Recreation Fields and Facilities
Currently Owned by AUSD.
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated the School District would also bring the matter before the School
Board; the School District would have first priority for facility use.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the recent pool situation [closure] has sparked new
interest from School Board Subcommittee members to approve the agreement
expeditiously before a next crisis happens.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether different use terms would be established if
Kaufman Auditorium is included, stated there have been past issues about who can use
the facility and when.
The Interim City Manager responded perhaps things have changed because of the
economy; stated rent would be a revenue generator; the key would be to get full
utilization.
Mayor Johnson stated in the past, groups have not been able to use Kaufman
Auditorium because the cost is beyond their budget.
The Interim City Manager stated the City uses recreational fields and related facilities
and is better than the School District at the core service; the City works with non-profits
in utilizing facilities; the key is to strike an arrangement with the School District to start
the dialogue.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether pool maintenance and operation is a 60-40 split.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the City does all the scheduling and is
responsible for custodial services and water chemistry; stated the School District is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,16,"responsible for large capital items.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the City and School District had an eight-year
agreement, which has lapsed.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the Agreement was signed in the 1960's,
renewed in 1982, and amended in 1994; the maintenance staff was all School District
staff prior to 1994; to increase efficiencies, the City took back maintenance staff back in
1994; the intent was to start the clock in 1994 and go to 2014, but it did not get into the
final agreement; the Agreement ended in 2002; the City has been operating under the
old agreement.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the concept would be to get a more uniform,
holistic arrangement for all facilities under one umbrella agreement.
The Recreation and Park Director responded having one entity schedule everything
would be more efficient.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether part of the effort would be to help the School
District market and maximize use and revenue through leases.
The Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated a rate structure
and priority use would be established.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether complaints regarding rates would fall on the
Council, to which the Recreation and Park Commission responded complaints would go
through the Recreation Commission.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would include capital and maintenance,
to which the Recreation and Park Director responded the agreement would include
everything.
Mayor Johnson stated performing an inventory and assessment is important to ensure
an analysis of conditions and regular, appropriate maintenance.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the percentage of recovery through fees, to which
the Recreation and Park Director responded minimal.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired where funding would come from for the additional fields.
The Recreation and Park Director responded funding would be part of negotiations with
the School District.
The Interim City Manager stated that she included the Kaufman Auditorium because
revenue generated from the use of the auditorium could offset another recreational
asset.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2010-11-03,17,"Vice Mayor deHaan stated fees do not take care of park maintenance; the Recreation
and Park Department's budget needs to be safeguarded; public safety has a way of
eroding Recreation and Park Department dollars; the challenge would be finding a way
to improve the funding stream.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council has discussed savings with synthetic turf; the
mission is not to protect the budget; the budget is to protect public parks; policy needs
to be established regarding leagues exclusively using a public asset when a fee is paid,
which has a price tag.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to follow up on earlier
discussion [Park Master Plan, paragraph no. 10-528 regarding incorporating the
facilities in the larger [Park Master] Plan.
Under discussion, the Interim City Manager stated School District recreational facilities
would be included in the Master Plan inventory.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether basketballs courts at Alameda Point would be
included, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point has a dog park.
The Interim City Manager stated Alameda Point has a skate park and gym also.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the boat docks would be included.
The Interim City Manager responded everything would be included in the inventory.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point also has a recreation hall.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:39 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 3, 2010",CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf