body,date,page,text,path
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, January 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 5:46 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Agreement with LFR, Inc. For
environmental consulting services at Alameda Point in the amount of $175,130 for a total
agreement amount of $249,000.
2-B.
Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to execute sublease(s) at Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
None.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,2,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez noted that they did not hold a business meeting during December, although a
very nice social gathering was held. He noted that there was no discussion, and that the next
meeting would be held on January 19, 2005. He noted that they would decide how to carry out
the ARRA's wishes at that time.
Member DeHaan noted that while he was not part of the decision made at the last ARRA
meeting, he supported that decision. He was concerned that the process took much longer than
anyone could have anticipated, and that when he was Chair of EDC, he ensured that they were up
to speed on Alameda Point issues. He recalled several team members (Al Clooney and Dan
Meyers) who had passed away during this process.
Mayor Johnson noted that she and Member Daysog had been members of the BRAG as well.
Chair Perez noted that three active former BRAG members sat on the City Council, and that
hoped that their dedication would reach Sacramento and Washington, D.C. He noted that it had
been an honor to serve in this capacity, and acknowledged that change was necessary.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese recalled previous discussions to bring the redevelopment of the Point to the
mainstream consciousness of Alameda. He noted that the very light turnout at the ARRA
meetings did not meet that goal. He requested that the regular meeting time be changed to 7:30
p.m. in order to encourage more community participation. He noted that the closed session could
be held before the regular meeting.
Mayor Johnson suggested agendizing that item for the next meeting, and noted that a 7:00 start
time could be tried. A special meeting would be held on Thursday, January 20, 2005, at 7:30 p.m.
Member DeHaan requested an update on the Consultant Agreement to be placed on the next
agenda.
Chair Perez did not anticipate that there would be any further amendments to current consultant
contracts. He added that they could make an updated budget presentation at the next regular
meeting. They had anticipated some changes to the consultant contracts, and that they did not
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-05,3,"impact their contingency or any other line items contained in the ARRA-led predevelopment
budget.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
8-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session: The ARRA received a briefing
from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 6:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\01-05-05 Regular. ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-01-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-B
Thursday, January 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 8:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Mayor, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
There were no speaker slips.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3-A. Amending Resolution No. 010 establishing rules and procedures for Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority meetings by amending the starting time of regular meetings from 5:30 p.m.
to 7:00 p.m. (requested by Boardmember Matarrese)
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
Member Matarrese noted that this item is approved with the intent to increase public participation.
4.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
4-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from the Real Property Negotiator; no action was taken.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:21 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel,
ARRA Secretary
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\1-20-05 Special.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-01-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
2-A
Wednesday, February 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:16 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 3, 2004.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of November 18, 2004.
2-C. Resolution Supporting a Joint Local / State Effort to Speed Up Redevelopment of
California's Closed Military Bases.
Chair Johnson motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 by Member Matarrese.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud gave monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. At the January Meeting with the Navy we developed a Master Timeline with the Navy
and got an update on the status of some of the selective restoration sites. We discussed the first
phase footprint and key IR sites that are contained within the footprint and the ARRA made a
presentation at that meeting of our revised infrastructure costs for Alameda Point. We gave the
Navy an update of the status of the Trust exchange with the State Lands Commission. We let
them know that the legislation as been approved for the Trust exchange and that we had drafted a
draft exchange agreement that we had shared with State Lands Commission staff. Our legal
counsel had submitted it to their legal counsel and that we were currently awaiting comments.
Elizabeth Johnson, one of our planners at AP made a presentation to the historic advisory board
on Jan 7th where we gave them some background information on the historic district and the
actions that were underway relative to the historic district.
1
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,2,"On
Saturday,
Jan
22nd we had a tour with the Alameda Architectural Preservation. The group
came out and we toured around the base, specifically focusing on historic preservation issues. We
had an excellent turn out with well over 15 members attending, along with Page and Turnbull.
Two upcoming community workshops: the first one is March 3rd with the planning board; at that
one we will focus largely on land use options, a continuing dialogue of what's happening at our
first two community workshops. The next would be on Mar 23rd with the transportation
commission where we would focus more on transportation related issues obviously and
specifically on some of the discussions that we had at our last workshop for estuary crossings.
Our goal is take all of those transit options and try and funnel them down to a couple that we can
really study in depth as we move forward thru the process. So this is the continuing dialogue on
that issue with the transportation commission, again hosted with the APAC as well.
Member DeHaan asked how we are planning to get feedback from the Historic Preservation
Society on the tour and if they be part of the community workshop. Stephen Proud replied that
they were invited to participate in those meetings as an opportunity to make sure their comments
came through the workshop format and they were also invited to solicit and give us comments
independent of those workshops.
Member Matarrese requested minutes of that meeting to give us at least some indication of what
they might have said.
Stephen Proud began discussions on the ARRA led predevelopment budget: The ARRA has $3.5
million that is available to lead the predevelopment planning period. There was a slight increase on
Navy conveyance and on the land use planning side. At this point through the process we've spent
@ 45% of what we had budgeted and we' re about 12 mo. into an 18 mo. process.
Councilmember DeHaan asked if we were anticipating any contract amendments. Stephen Proud
replied that at this point, we don't expect there would be any contract amendments. We do have a
couple of contracts that have expirations date that were set for Mar 31st but we don't see
anything on the horizon that looks like it would result in one of our consultant contracts going up
in any extraordinary way in the near future.
Member DeHaan asked what the completion date is on the project. Stephen replied that this
budget was programmed to take us thru June 30th of 2005 -- an 18 month ARRA led pre
development period, from the beginning of 04 to the middle of 05.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC
There were no representatives from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there were no representatives
from APAC. Chair Johnson stated there was an APAC sub-committee meeting this evening
therefore there were no members available for an oral report.
2
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-02-02,3,"5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
RAB met on January 6, 2005. Key topics were the Seaplane Lagoon; site 17. The draft feasibility
study was presented. A timeline for implementing remediation for that site in 2006 was discussed.
This would be the actual remediation of contaminants in the Seaplane Lagoon. An update of
action on the Miller School and Woodstock Child Care Center, site 30 and the remediation
activities that went on there. New RAB member, Joan Conrad, voted in. Next meeting is February
3, 2005 at 6:30 pm.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Mataresse thanked staff for all the work done, particularly with getting community
workshops together and stated that he's very interested in the Transportation workshop on March
23rd, acknowledging that having a transportation infrastructure in place before a development
increases the value of the land because it's there and not an encumbrance. A meeting on February
18, 2005 is schedule to reactivate our liaison committee with AC Transit Propose to discuss
transportation with a BART liaison committee.
Chair Johnson suggests our liaison committee should schedule a meeting with BART, which may
need council approval. States BART is a big issue for Alameda.
Stephen Proud stated that the logistics had not been worked out yet, but mentioned that it would
be hosted as a joint workshop with either one of the boards or commissions and the APAC but
that the 4th workshop would be a more general public forum. There was nothing formal discussed
for a 5th workshop. Member DeHaan would like to see the Economic Development Commission
host the 5th meeting. Chair Johnson stated that discussions regarding EDC hosting had already
been done. Chair Johnson asked if there was a public outreach planned. Prior ones very well
attended. Great benefit that these workshops are broadcasted live.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 7:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
3
Y:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA\MINUTES\2005\02-02-05 Regular.ARRAminutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 2, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Mayor Johnson presiding.
5-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 5, 2005.
2-B.
Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of January 20, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes -4; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Stephen Proud gave a monthly update on Alameda Point land planning and Navy conveyance
process. He stated that on February 16th, a proposal was made to the Navy for the acquisition of
Alameda Point. Discussions with the Navy included a presentation about conveyance strategy
and approach for moving Alameda Point forward. The proposal to the Navy was very well
received and they expressed appreciation for the proposal. A series of follow-up meetings have
been scheduled to discuss environmental and economic issues, and parcel identification suitable
for transfer and phasing.
Next land planning workshop is scheduled for March 3rd This workshop has been broken up into
two pieces: the March 3rd meeting is co-hosted by the planning board and APAC and will focus
on land use alternatives that have been developed over the first series of public workshops. The
second part of this workshop will be a separate meeting on the March 23rd with the
Transportation Commission, which will focus on transportation alternatives. The goal is to come
back to the ARRA in April with a full briefing on the 2 workshops. A good solid attendance is
expected as was experienced in the past. Andrew Thomas from the planning department
continued to discuss benefits of having the workshops broken into two separate meetings. He
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,2,"stated the community expressed a desire to receive information in smaller quantities rather than
two much, too fast.
Mr. Thomas discussed estuary crossing and long term planning, not only for Alameda Point but
for the entire City of Alameda and that we will be presenting to the public the various
transportation possibilities: light rail connections to the Fruitvale BART along the regional
outline alignment to the aerial tram from the west end to the west Oakland BART and a number
of different options.
Chair Johnson mentioned the interagency liaison committee with AC Transit and talked about
transportation solutions. She would like to look at a system that uses the same tracks that are
currently in place in Alameda. She stated that this would dramatically cut down the costs of that
kind of transportation solution.
Andrew Thomas agreed and explained the difference between heavy gauge and light gauge rail.
The new street car systems are typically on light gauge, yet the old belt line was a heavy gauge
system. The issues with the solution of using the existing rails are on the Oakland side and the
ability to cross the Union Pacific lines at grade. The PUC rarely grants those kinds of approvals.
Chair Johnson pointed out that no matter what gauge rail system was used, that issue would have
to be dealt with. She believed the rail system alternative that should be looked at should be
focused on using the existing infrastructure in place and we should not spend a lot of money and
time looking at rail systems that don't fit our current infrastructure. Chair Johnson asked if there
were any costs estimates using the current rail and gauge.
Andrew Thomas stated that not all costs estimates were available but did have good costs
estimates for what it would take to put in a new system. Chair Johnson would like a cost estimate
using existing rails and Andrew Thomas explained the issues relating to costs savings for
existing rail system and creating cars that are designed for light gauge rail.
Chair Johnson mentioned that the San Francisco Muni system is using old cars and they work
very well. She also suggested that a transportation solution be in place even before base
development starts, and would like to find a solution for transportation throughout Alameda over
to Fruitvale BART.
Andrew Thomas agreed. He stated that they were meeting with the City of Oakland and the Port
of Oakland to get an idea on how these agencies feel about this, as well as with AC Transit and
BART. He mentioned that if an at-grade crossing of the Union Pacific Lines was obtainable,
then that option would look very good. If not, then we'd be looking at building an elevated
system or diving under. Member Matarrese suggested comparing what Caltrans has done
between San Francisco and San Jose. Chair Johnson suggested some sort of shuttle system get
started now.
Member Matarrese mentioned two items that were brought up at the AC Transit meeting. One
was electric buses which would make our fuel be AP&T instead of some oil company, similar to
golf carts.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,3,"Chair Johnson stated that the information given at the workshops should include the fact that
some solutions are never going to happen because they are so expensive, or at least not in the
foreseeable future. There are some solutions that are feasible long term, but we're looking at
short term feasible solutions that can get started even before base development starts.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
4-A.
Recommendation to approve a 10-year lease agreement with Nelson's Marine for
Building 167.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager introduced David Jaber, regional vice-
president of PM Realty Group. Mr. Jaber presented a short analysis regarding the Nelson's
Marine issue. Mr. Jaber recommends the lease and supports the market rent for Nelson's
Marine. He also analyzed the $34M difference that was presented by the boat yard attorney at
the last ARRA board meeting.
Mr. Jaber gave a brief background and discussed how the fair market value of the Nelson's
Marine rent was determined: Nelson's Marine was one of the first groups out to Alameda Point,
with a 5 year lease which contained a clause that allowed for renewal at 90% of fair market
value. This survey was performed by Dunn Associates and that helped determine the fair market
value. The fair market value component provided by Dunn & Associates was on the base rent.
When the rent survey was done, the focus was on four things: 1) review of the lease and the
leases, 2) site coverage ratio, 3) the gross rent and net rent conversion, 4) the review of the rent
per square foot.
Mr. Jaber gave a review of the leases, comparing the costs between two boat yard leases for
taxes, insurance, and maintenance. He analyzed the numbers -- using a 20 yr. term to help
explain the differential -- which showed that the $34M loss, proposed by the opposing four
boatyards, was not supported. His analysis further justified that the net lease proposed comes
out with the appropriate rate. Mr. Jaber concluded that the fair market value -- the 31.5 % based
upon the 90% of fair market value -- is appropriate for the lease. He included percentage rent,
the ability to prosper as the tenant prospers, sublease recapture, which doesn't allow the tenant to
profit by bringing in subtenants, rental increases, 2% every year, justified considering there is the
ability to reduce the land space by 75,000 sq feet, and lastly a 10 yr term is very appropriate.
Mr. Jaber recommended the Nelson lease for approval.
Mayor Johnson called a few speakers. Richard Lyons of Wendell, Rosen, Black and Dean spoke
on behalf of Nelson's Marine and addressed the legal aspects of the lease, explaining Mr.
Nelson's rights to extend the lease, right of first negotiation and the price for that right, and the
contractual obligation on the part of the City and Mr. Nelson to abide by determination of the
appraiser regarding the lease term. He requested that the two leases be approved.
Carl Nelson, president of Nelson's Marine thanked Mr. Jaber and Mr. Lyons and looks forward
to having his business here for at least another 10 years.
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,4,"Peter Lindh, representing the four boat yards came up to discuss the validity of the $34 million
shortfall that his clients projected if the Nelson's Marine lease is approved. He stated that the
$34M was based on the principles involved and that the actual lease terms themselves make the
shortfall about $36M.
Mr. Lindh explained that there were two specific flaws to the PM Realty (Mr. Jaber's )
argument. The first was that the two boatyards used in Mr. Jaber's analysis are not comparable
(triple net versus gross analysis); it's not fair market value. The second flaw is the .45 cents that
Nelson's is paying per square foot per month on maintenance. He stated the amount as
inaccurate and reiterated that the Nelson rate is not fair market value.
He discussed the cost of having a fixed rate - is $190,000 to the City of Alameda and stated that
the only adjustment that PM has suggested in their counter proposal is reducing the lease term
from 20 yr to 10 yrs. Mr. Lindh concluded and urged the Board, as a fiscal responsibility, to
require PM Realty to reevaluate and come up with a proposal that is more consistent with
economic reality and fair market value.
Chair Johnson asked if the City is going to lose money on this lease. Nanette Banks, Finance
and Administration Division Manager, Development Services, explained that the Nelson's lease
renewal was brought to the ARRA governing body for approval and the four boat yard attorney
raised questions about a $34M loss if we went forward with this lease. The ARRA Board
directed PM Realty and Development Services to research this issue. Ms. Banks further
explained that there hasn't been a counter offer, nor would there be, because according to the
Nelson's lease, they have the first right to negotiate at 90% fair market value and the appraisal
was to establish the fair market value.
Chair Johnson and Boardmembers discussed the issue of the Nelson's lease creating some unfair
advantage to other boat yards, and the original concern of the $34M loss. There were no counter
proposals to the Nelson's lease.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-0;
Abstentions-0
4-B.
Recommendation to approve a 5-year lease, with a possible (5-year) options with
Nelson's Marine for 400 linear feet of Pier 1.
No speaker slips. Recommendation approved and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4;
Noes-0; Abstentions -0.
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-03-02,5,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
Lee Perez, APAC Chair, spoke about the transition from the APAC to the various Boards and
Commissions which will be presented next month. Also, members of APAC have been working
very hard with staff in terms of planning the various public meetings, specifically the workshops
of March 3rd and 23rd. He expects a successful meeting.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
February 3rd was the last meeting. The next meeting has been rescheduled to March 14th from
March 3rd to accommodate the workshop. Three main items were discussed: 1) Remediation on
OU5, Coast Guard North housing. The final plan was due on February 18th, heading for a record
of determination and then implementation later this year. 2) Sites 6,7,8,9 by Encinal High School
- preliminary scope of work is out and final comments are due this month. Hope to proceed with
that in May 2005. 3) Discussion about location of some nuclear propulsion work and general
radiological materials and disposal out at the site in the Northwest Territory. A survey called the
Historical Radiological Survey Assessment is being formulated so that they know exactly what
happened in that location. A lot of material is put out at these meetings and the coordination of
these activities is something the public should be very interested in.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith came up and spoke on various topics.
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Johnson adjourned the open session meeting at 8:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
5-B
Wednesday, April 6, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Vice Mayor Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of February 2, 2005.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The motion was
seconded by Doug DeHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A. Presentation on the March 3rd and March 23rd Community Workshops regarding
Transportation and the Preliminary Development Concept
Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, gave an overview of the planning process for Alameda
Point and the transportation planning process with presentations to follow. The consultant team
was also present for the first time at an ARRA Board meeting. Mr. Thomas updated Members of
the four major community workshops - that they've been very well attended. The Alameda Point
Land Use team has also had a number of briefings with the Planning Board, Transportation
Commission and other Boards and Commissions. There are two more major workshops planned,
the next one is scheduled for Saturday, May 7th, with the final community workshop in early
June. The plans are taking shape. For the next couple of workshops, the plans will be refined
with input from the community (both the transportation and the land use plans).
The March 3rd land use workshop will be rebroadcast on local cable channel 15 on April 7th, and
the March 23rd transportation workshop on April 14th.
Walter Rask and Jim Adams from Roma (Land Use consultants) were present, as well as
Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers Transportation consultants) to give respective
presentations.
1
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,2,"Walter Rask: Our agenda for this evening is two parts. The first part is to give an overview of
the preliminary development concept including the next steps. Part 2 - Fehr and Peers will be
presenting an overview of the transportation strategy focusing largely on the off base
transportation issues having to do with capacity of tubes and bridges and the major street
network. We'll be doing more work later internally on the base itself and their presentation will
conclude with discussion of the next steps in that process.
Land Use Slide Presentation
Mr. Rask presented the history of the Reuse Plan the ARRA adopted in 1996, which set forward
a basic framework for development not only of Alameda Point but also of the FISC and Annex
properties on the East side of Main Street. He discussed that we are only dealing with the area
west of Main Street. In 2003, the City Council adopted an amendment to the General Plan that
refined the Reuse Plan for mostly for the areas west of Main although there was a small area on
the northeast of Main and this set the basic framework for redevelopment of the base and the
targets for build out, the framework for the larger transportation system and perhaps most
importantly it set forth seven goals for redevelopment of the base: 1) to seamlessly integrate
Alameda Point with the rest of the community, 2) that Alameda become a vibrant new
neighborhood with a variety of uses in it; 3) to maximize the waterfront accessibility, 4) to
deemphasize the auto and to make new development compatible with the transportation capacity
that is available, and 5) to insure economic development, 6) provide a mixed use environment
and finally, 7) to promote neighborhood centers.
Mr. Rask discussed the challenges, including contractual commitments, large Historic district
area, ground water contamination, the Tidelands Trust places restrictions on the use of lands
under state tidelands and specifically excludes housing, the Wildlife Refuge, the green area, as
the effect of constraining development on the blocks between the western boundary and
Monarch Street, the 100 year flood area has to be mitigated either by raising the ground or
providing some kind of a sea wall, young bay mud poses problems of structural stability because
of the danger of liquefaction in earthquake events. There is also a whole gamut of regulatory
agencies that have a say on these matters. The plan as it currently stands has two major aspects.
The first is what we refer to as the framework plan that fixes the location and character of the
major streets and open spaces on the base and also identifies opportunities for certain civic
functions. The land use plan is the second half of the two part preliminary development concept.
Mr. Rask discussed the community concerns about Measure A, the Historic areas, etc. He stated
that the next steps in the planning process is to refine the plan and respond to the major issues
that have come up in the last workshop. One is a desire to more closely examine the notion of
neighborhood centers as the general plan calls for. More generally to address neighborhood
character issues. Pedestrian, bicycle and transit enhancements are a similar theme. At the next
workshop they will present some refinements, as well as new information on alternatives, and
then the refined transportation plan. Mr. Rask stated that the final workshop in June will be to
actually present the preliminary development concept and the transportation plan with the intent
is to bring it to the ARRA board in July.
Transportation Presentation
2
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,3,"Matthew Ridgway and Michael Keeling from Fehr and Peers gave the transportation
presentation. (Both the entire presentations are available for review and are on file with the
ARRA Secretary)
Mr. Ridgway gave an overview of the transportation strategy that has been developed and
discussed some of the major components for sustainable transportation, including land use
strategy, employment and retail, residential and retail, and to discourage auto use.
The
presentation included a menu of options and the challenges that go along with those options.
There was much discussion about the Tubes getting more constrained and congested from the
development within the region and Oakland. Mr. Ridgway presented some ideas about how to
minimize the impact on the tube.
The initial transportation strategy includes the use of ECO passes - the cost of purchasing ECO
passes will be built into the homeowner's association fees for anybody who lives at Alameda
Point. It will be built into the fees that are part of the employment component of Alameda Point
as well.
The plan also includes shuttle buses, enhanced ferry services to include bike stations, car share
programs, multi modal transit center, onsite transportation coordinator (a person who organizes
the car pools and van pools, makes sure the shuttles are operating efficiently) etc.
The presentation also included BART and AC Transit options/route alternatives as well as a light
rail option (Cybertran).
In June, the transportation options will be moved on to a more detailed evaluation and the next
steps include two major components: 1) continue to look at the long term transit options and 2)
take the short terms transit options that we've talked about and look at them with much more
detail so that we have something that is ready to construct on opening day of the project.
Another point, according to the MTC, in terms of land use densities to support transit, Alameda
would be considered suburban - rural, the density that you are talking about would fit into that
category, which in their mind would be something that in terms of regional funding you would
be very low on the list to compute for regional funding
Member Gilmore thanked Mr. Ridgway and commented that the presentation was very
informative ""if somewhat sobering."" Member Gilmore called several speakers:
first speaker, Helen Sause, made comments on the community workshops she's attended, stating
that the transportation system being developed is very critical. She discussed the need to find
partners with the rest of Alameda, not just with Alameda Point, and to engage the rest of
Alameda.
Second speaker, Neil Sinclair of Cybertran, commented on the light rail option and stated that he
anticipates being here in Alameda and continuing their development.
3
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,4,"Third speaker, Diane Lichenstein, APAC Chair, commented on the tremendous amount of work
and effort put into the community workshops and the preliminary development concept (PDC).
Emphasized continued dialogue with community.
Member Gilmore opened the item for discussion. Member Mataresse thanked staff and APAC
for hosting the community workshops with the boards and commissions, etc. and appreciates the
summaries of the meetings. He discussed the use of electric buses and liked the idea of the
duplex shop houses in the historic buildings. Has one regret regarding ""the Wall"" and
commented on the speed limit being dropped along Ralph Appezzato Pkwy.
Member deHaan: Stated his appreciation for everything that's gone forward and particularly
transportation, probably the most important segment. Had some concerns about the ferry service,
that it should service Oakland as well. He stated he liked the idea of the ECO Pass but had
concerns about how the fees are paid. He slso liked the idea of the tram. He stated that the
realism is that the ferry system, the bus systems and some other rapid bus system is the solution.
Member Daysog: Stated he was excited about the ECO pass and the BART shuttle alternative.
Stated that the transportation solution for Alameda Point is really the transportation solution for
the City of Alameda.
Member Gilmore: Excellent presentation with an incredible amount of information in great
detail yet very easy to understand. Agreed with Member Daysog that whatever transit solution
that we end up with is a transit solution for the entire island and not just for Alameda Point, and
that it needed to be in place yesterday. She made a specific comment about the potential light rail
connection from Alameda Point to the Fruitvale BART station. Stated that we can't lose sight of
the need for connections going off the island, but given our future developments - an ""across
island"" transit corridor as well which has the potential of taking people out of their cars as they
go from one end of the island to the other and generating more tax revenue for the city.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A. Oral report from APAC.
APAC Chair Lee Perez commented on the tremendous amount of data received during this
evening's presentation. He thanked staff and the experts for their wonderful job of drawing in
citizens. Following the board's instructions, the APAC spent considerable amount of time
discussing what could replace the APAC. He mentioned the letter which was sent to the board by
APAC and hope that they will give it serious consideration. Mentioned the need of citizens'
input.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked and congratulated the APAC as well as staff for the incredible
outreach that was done because it has really shown in the increased attendance at the last several
4
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-06,5,"meetings. The APAC worked very hard to get the word out and it was nice to see the result and
to have a reasoned dialogued among all the citizens of Alameda.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese had nothing to report as he was unable to attend the last RAB meeting due to
illness. He stated he would be unable to attend the next meeting as well due to a special City
Council meeting being held at the same time. He will provide the secretary with the minutes of
the two meetings, so that they may be included in the packet.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Bill Smith spoke on various topics .
7.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
ADJOURNMENT
Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the open session meeting at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Frankel
ARRA Secretary
5
G: BaseResue&Redv/Arra/Minutes/2005/04-06-05 regular minutes",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:11 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only.
There were no speaker slips.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Acting Executive Director, Bill Norton, gave a brief overview about the work session on the
ARRA Budget and introduced Development Services Director, Leslie Little, who introduced
staff : Nanette Banks, Jennifer Ott, and Stephen Proud.
Leslie Little gave a powerpoint presentation on the Budget Planning for Alameda Point. The
presentation focused on transition planning and preparation for the development of Alameda
Point. The information presented expresses the existing conditions in the current ARRA
budget and also the implications of some of the decisions that have been made during current
negotiations. Ms. Little discussed two options to consider: 1) how to transition in the event
that the developer (APCP) elects to proceed with the development of Alameda Point and, 2)
how to transition if APCP chooses NOT to proceed.
Ms. Little discussed the first scenarios (APCP proceeding), including the Alameda Point
Bond, and that the activities that are currently being paid from it would transfer as direct cost
to the developer; approximately 18 months. Other responsibilities would also shift to the
developer, leasing and property maintenance activities, other financials responsibilities like
project related tax increments, and current debt obligation.
The second option was discussed (APCP electing not to proceed). Ms Little noted that this
issue is a ""structural deficiency"" in the ARRA Budget. She stated that there are expenditures
that are greater than the revenues at this point. She explained that if the developer doesn't
elect to proceed, the key issues moving forward are: the Alameda Point Bond will be
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,2,"exhausted some time around Sept and October; there are a number of deferred costs, or
capital costs, that are expected would be part of the developer's pro forma; and the debt
payments that began to come due in 2006. Also included in the presentation was the current
ARRA staff load on the existing ARRA budget.
Ms. Little continued to discuss some challenges to the ARRA budget. She explained that by
2006 and 7 we will have spent down our fund balance and, by 2008, we won't have enough
to balance our budget. She discussed how a large part of the ARRA budget is contributed to
municipal services -- about 1/2 of what we take in annually, $10M in revenue. She stated that
the presentation is intended to start the conversation about the need to either increase
general fund revenue opportunities to tackle some of the costs, or decrease the general fund
expenditures out at Alameda Point because we don't have the resources to continue to
support them.
Ms. Little discussed the current pro forma and its assumptions regarding new public
revenues, primarily in property tax pass thru, the sales taxes, property transfer taxes, etc.
with the sale of the homes (new development) = revenues coming into the general fund.
She concluded the presentation, summarizing that staff is preparing for APCP to move
forward in the next two months and that we will need to transition quickly negotiate a
disposition and development agreement at 18 months and move into an implementation
mode; subsequently, if APCP does not move forward, there are implications regarding
dealing with long term costs over time. Ms. Little mentioned a subsequent ""phase 2"" ARRA
Budget workshop.
Councilmember de Haan expressed concern with the Navy's inability to fulfill the
commitment to the 18 mos. transition period. Stephen Proud addressed his concern by
explaining that we are trying to expedite the time line as much as possible, to the extent that
the Navy would be able to make the property available to us sooner. He discussed various
issues on the timeline that we (ARRA) have to accomplish, specifically the environmental
review process.
Boardmembers and staff discussed general leasing issues/opportunities at Alameda Point,
with Chair Johnson mentioning activities to attract film productions.
Member Matarrese expressed concern about the ""structural problem"" of the ARRA Budget,
stating that perhaps we' ve set the system up for failure - and that we may be providing
services that we simply cannot afford given our leasing capability. Leslie Little addressed
his concern by explaining that once there is a DDA, the actual costs that are being born by
the budget now, would have to be reduced significantly, specifically the municipal services.
Member Gilmore asked about insurance expenses. Leslie Little explained that the tenants
themselves carry liability insurance as part of their lease requirement.
Member Daysog initiated discussion about the proposed mitigation where the general fund
reduces dependency on the ARRA and absorbs 1.8million dollars in expenses. The
municipal services funding resources was discussed.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,3,"Member Gilmore summarized the challenges of reducing the amount of expenditures in the
ARRA budget, by allowing the general fund to absorb those expenditures. Bill Norton
replied that staff provided the ARRA Board with this detail to see the impact of the changes
on the general fund.
3-B.
Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Direct P.M. Realty, Acting as
Property Manager, to Enter Into a Contract with Courtney Giampolini to Waterproof
City Hall West (Building One) in an Amount not to Exceed $966,650
Nanette Banks provided photos of the extensive water damage in various locations of
Building 1(City Hall West). Building 1, like other buildings at Alameda Point, have
problems that require a lot of work, specifically asbestos remediation, lead paint and
waterproofing, roof and other capital upgrades. Ms. Banks introduced Rick Jones,
construction manager from PM Realty Group.
After Mr. Jones explained the problems with the buildings, he and Chair Johnson had
conversation about the contractor bidding process and if this process was approved by the
ARRA. Ms. Banks explained that in an exhibit to the property management agreement with
PM Realty, PM Realty is allowed to use their own process for selecting contractors for us.
Member deHaan, as well as the other boardmembers, expressed concern about the almost
$1M.cost for the building repair. Member Gilmore questioned the long-term ""guarantees"" to
this costly solution. She wanted reassurance that the same problems don't resurface in a
year, after spending $1M. Mr. Jones explained that there is a 10 yr warranty, which is pretty
standard in the industry.
Staff and boardmembers discussed other options for housing City Staff. Bill Norton
explained that there is no other space available for city staff to move into. There was also
further discussion about window replacements. Mr. Jones stated that 40 windows would be
replaced, and the other 200 are aluminum.
Member Daysog stated that the ARRA is in a fiscal crises and as such non-life threatening
projects, like waterproofing, I believe need to be delayed especially if the professional
opinion is that delay doesn't result in significant cost increases to the project.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Daysog but stated that (Building 1) is a workplace for
our workers and we can't have our city employees working in those conditions. She also
requested a briefing for discussion of the ARRA board the bidding process and requirements.
The Board approved the staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-4; Noes-1
(Daysog); Abstentions-0
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-04-19,4,"4. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
G: \Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\April 19.Special ARRA minutes.doc
4",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-04-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 12, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
Public Comment on Agenda Items Only.
One speaker slip from Helen Sause, however she was not present.
3.
CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
4.
PRESENTATION
4-A. Presentation/Update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud briefed the Board on two different fronts: 1) the Navy conveyance process, and 2)
the land planning effort. A proposal has been submitted to the Navy - they wrote a counter
proposal that we responded to which is under consideration right now with them. We're hoping
to have an official response from the Navy by the end of June and that coincides with Alameda
Community Partners election to proceed timeline.
Mr. Proud gave a brief overview of the May 7, 2005 Community Meeting, commenting that staff
is pleased with the community's continued participation in the planning process and there was a
lot of good feedback. The next community workshop is June 8th at Mastick. The next step would
be to come back to the ARRA board with a copy of the preliminary development concept for the
regular July ARRA meeting.
Member Mataresse requested that a section be included that has a summary of compliance with
the General Plan amendment, compliance with the Economic Development Strategic plan and
compliance with other relevant plans, for that preliminary development concept that will be
coming back in July.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,2,"5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
5-A. Provide Direction to the Acting Executive Director regarding the term of the lease
extension for Building 613 Sublease Agreement between the ARRA and Alameda
Point Collaborative.
Debbie Potter requested direction on a sublease between the ARRA and APC for building 13
which is currently being used as an office to house the Red Cross. She gave a brief history of the
lease and requested extension thru Dec 31, 2006 SO that it coincides with the overall development
plan for Alameda Point. Several representatives from APC spoke in support of a lease extension
until 2012, including Doug Biggs and Jim Franz.
In response to Member Matarrese regarding the time frame for development of that parcel, Bill
Norton replied that plans are for the Navy to turn that property over to the City at the end of
2006. Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, also noted that if we reach an agreement
with the Navy and the developer at the end of 2006, infrastructure and geotechnical work would
start in 2007
After discussion from Boardmembers regarding the timing of development, Chair Johnson
advised that it would make more sense to have the shorter term now and consider a longer term
when we know more at the end of Dec 2006, supporting staff recommendation.
Staff recommendation accepted and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes-5; Noes-0
Abstentions-0
5-B.
Study Session of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget
Bill Norton, acting Executive Director, introduced this item with an overview of Part 1 of the
Budget Study Session. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented Part 2 - a
summary of the FY 2005-06 ARRA Budget - by walking the Board through the staff report. She
discussed overriding issues: the pro forma and the development assumptions at Alameda Point.
Member DeHaan raised the question regarding $1.8M that should be absorbed back into the
general fund. Bill Norton confirmed Member DeHaan's comments and advised the Board of a
new proposed budget for 05-06 for all city funds, including the general fund, noting that
revenues for different departments are down and we have accounted for this in our budget for the
next fiscal year.
There was brief discussion about the storage of surplus equipment the Navy left for the City.
Leslie noted some plans for the surplus equipment, including an auction to raise funds. She then
discussed the organizational structure for the Development Services Department, namely the
Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division - where 4 staff members are paid from the ARRA
Budget. Leslie discussed Building One tenants: Development occupies the entire 2nd floor; the
Alameda Development Corporation which maintains a 2nd floor office; and a storage room for
the Navy's records. Public Works, Fire Prevention and Information Technology occupy the first
floor and balance of the building.
2
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,3,"Leslie discussed the employee positions and vacancies in the department and how they fit
together with the three budget categories: Community Development, ARRA, and the CIC.
Municipal Services funding was noted in length, with Member Daysog requesting a separate
report/background information on the mitigation fund.
Bill Norton advised that there are still negotiations with the developer upcoming and if the
developer exercises their notice to proceed, they will make direct cost recovery payments, until
we have a disposition and development agreement, to DSD and the general fund.
Member Matarrese advised that we have to be prepared for the developer not exercising their
right to proceed, and that if we are able to segregate general fund obligations from ARRA fund
obligations, that would be the foundation for making a decision on anything less than the best
case scenario. Leslie Little concluded her presentation.
6.
ORAL REPORTS
6-A. Oral report from APAC.
There were no representatives from the APAC to give a report.
6-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave a brief overview of the last RAB meeting he attended.
7.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
9.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
9-A. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
9-B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and U.S. Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Announcement of Action Taken in Closed Session, if any.
10. ADJOURNMENT
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-05-12,4,"Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
4
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\May 12. Special ARRA.minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-05-12.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:35 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A
Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the Approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar items. The
motion was seconded by Chair Johnson and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
PRESENTATION
3-A.
Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning
Steven Proud, project manager for Alameda Point, gave a brief update on Navy Negotiations,
focused on two fronts: submission of the conveyance proposal to the Navy; and the public planning
process. The conveyance proposal was submitted to the Navy in May and is under consideration by
the Navy right now. There have been meetings in support of that with some of the regulatory
agencies, including the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and EPA. The next
meeting with the Navy to discuss the contents of the proposal is June 2, 2005. Mr. Proud reminded
the public and the Board that the next public workshop is on June 8th at the Mastick Senior Center,
starting at 6:30PM.
Chair Johnson thanked Mr. Proud and commented on all the positive feedback she's received from
the public regarding the workshops: that they appreciate all the hard work and effort and how
informative and helpful the presentations were.
Mr. Proud gave credit to Andrew Thomas, Planning Supervisor, for coordinating the workshops, and
to Irma Frankel for coordinating the public outreach, and other staff members who have worked hard
to make sure the workshops are successful.
1
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES(2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,2,"Member deHaan asked when we're expecting the Navy to respond. Mr. Proud stated that we asked
for a response from the Navy by June 30th, which corresponds to the date in the conditional
acquisition agreement with Alameda Point Community Partners for there election to proceed.
3-B. Video presentation by the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York from the Alameda Naval Museum gave a brief (4 minutes) video presentation of the
Alameda naval Air Museum (ANAM).
Marilyn York and Barbara Bach were two public speakers, both requesting a long term lease with
the right of renewal and the same terms for the ANAM.
Member deHaan thanked them for the effort they put in it and remarked that the video was
extremely informative. He commended them for the effort to get the shell improvements which were
over $700,000.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITMES
4-A. Report authorizing the Acting Executive Director to Execute a two year lease renewal (1-
year with 1-year owner option) with Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) for Building
77 at Alameda Point.
In response to Member deHaan's question regarding why the agreement is in front of the Board if
it's already been signed, Bill Norton explained that the agreement has not been signed by the
museum association, as they indicated they want at least a 5 year and probably a 20 year lease. So
they have not signed it. Mr. Norton further explained that the ANAM did have a 5 year lease.
However, there were performance criteria in the lease, but they did not have the ability to perform
over a 3 year period because they did not have time to actually occupy the structure until they got a
certificate of occupancy in March 2004, it's not reasonable to expect them evaluated on the
performance measure that they were required to. The original thought was to give them this prior
year plus 2 years upcoming, so that we could review the performance criteria during that period of
time. Mr. Norton advised, based upon some of the concerns that ANAM has, to modify the item to
authorize the Executive Director to enter into negotiations with ANAM for the lease, rather than
authorizing the existing lease agreement to be signed - enter into negotiations for a new lease.
There were several speakers, including the representative from Red Bridge Media, Ken Robles, who
is partnered with Veterans Administration Archival Department in Washington, D.C. in a historical
video project (video taping veterans) to keep the history alive.
Member Matarrese motioned for staff's recommendation to enter into negotiations for a
new lease with ANAM. The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - O.
2
Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-06-01,3,"5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A
Oral report from APAC.
Chair Lee Perez was not present and the ARRA Secretary read written comments from Helen Sause
regarding her concerns on the redevelopment of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson advised that it was
unclear whether Ms. Sause's written note were drafted with Lee Perez as the APAC oral report, or if
she intended them to be just public comment.
5-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese said he would have two RAB at the July 14th ARRA meeting.
6. ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the governing body
has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker slip, Virginia Roberts, who supports Helen Sause's comments regarding
appointing a citizens committee to assist with the Alameda Point redevelopment.
Chair Johnson noted that public involvement is always encouraged and would like people to
continue to participate in the process.
7. COMMUNICAITONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
There was no additional communications from the Board.
8.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Chair Johnson advised that this item was a place holder in case it was needed, but that there was no
item to discuss.
9. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3
L:\Comdev\Base Reuse& Redevp\ARRA)MINUTES\2005\June 1.Regular ARRA minutes.doc",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, July 14, 2005
The meeting convened at 6:25 p.m. with Member Gilmore presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 6:45 p.m.)
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
After the Pledge of Allegiance Member Matarrese motioned to move the Closed Session (Item
3-A) to the end of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by
the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
2.
Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Only
None.
3.
ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION OF THE ARRA TO CONSIDER:
3-A. Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA, U.S. Navy and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
This item was moved to the end of the agenda.
4. PROCLAMATION
4-A. Proclamation to members of the APAC for their dedication and unwavering commitment
to the reuse and redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore addressed the audience and APAC members. She spoke about how APAC has
helped the community understand the challenges and issues regarding Alameda Point. Member
Gilmore then read the proclamation and handed one out to each of the APAC members.
APAC Chair Lee Perez thanked the ARRA Board for the opportunity to serve over the last
several years - he spoke about how pleased they (the APAC) were with the response to the
Reuse Plan & the participation from the community. He also mentioned that it's been a long
haul over the last 12 years since they first started and they were pleased with the outcome so far.
Member deHaan, expressed his gratitude for the leadership and dedication that Chair Perez and
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,2,"all the other members of APAC contributed toward the planning efforts of Alameda Point.
Members Daysog, Matarrese, and Chair Johnson (who just arrived at this point) also expressed
their gratitude.
5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
5-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular meeting of March 2, 2005.
5-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 6, 2005.
5-C. Approval of an Amendment to Agreement with Russell Resources extending the term for 90-
days and adding $54,000 to the budget for environmental consulting services.
5-D. Report from the Acting Executive Director recommending the approval of Subleases at
Alameda Point.
5-E. Recommendation to amend the approved FY 2005-2006 ARRA Budget to include $225,000
for repairs to the Al Dewitt O'Club.
Member Gilmore motioned to approve the Consent Calendar. The motion was seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
6.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
6-A. Presentation of the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC) for Alameda Point
establishing land use goals, transportation strategy and historic preservation strategy.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, discussed the updates on the Conveyance
process with the Navy and the status of the budget. The key topic discussed was the progress
with planning efforts regarding the PDC and introduced the document to the Board for their
review.
Mr. Proud advised that there are continuing discussions with the Navy on disposal strategies and
constraints with the property; and that we're moving forward with the Navy regarding a conveyance
agreement. He discussed the community meetings and the success in each of the workshops to
tackle specific topics that helped produce this draft document (the PDC). He further discussed
issues at Alameda Point (AP) about Navy conveyance and the land planning process.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, focused on the Community Reuse Plan and the draft
PDC. He discussed what the community's expectations for the development of AP and what the
real priorities are. He advised that the PDC was an integration of ""new"" with the ""old""
(Community Reuse Plan). Mr. Thomas explained the several Appendices of the PDC, which
included the Transportation Strategy, specifically the Broadway/Jackson feasibility study; and
the Historic Preservation element.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-07-14,3,"Regarding the Historic Preservation, Mr. Thomas discussed that there was a lot of community
involvement with questions regarding which buildings and homes to keep and which to get rid
of. The residential portion of the plan included 3000 new units: homes for sale and rentals.
There were several speakers who discussed various topics related to the PDC, including:
- Conversion of the naval base - Measure A
- Adequate school facilities at AP.
- Transportation planning
- Solar energy equipment
- Keeping the BOQ building for Veterans or Senior Housing
- Historic District Preservation
- Housing for all income levels
7.
ORAL REPORT
7-A. Oral report from APAC.
No oral report.
7-B. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese discussed topics from the last RAB meeting, including clean-up
methods, and how petroleum is being extracted. He also gave an update on the BCT activities
and the schedule for the site management program, which lists all the clean-up activities.
8.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speaker slips.
9. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
10. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:21 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-07-14.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Member Daysog presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special meeting of April 19, 2005
2-B. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to direct PM Realty Group, acting as
Property Manager, to enter into a contract with Manson Construction Company to dredge
The Alameda Point channel in an amount not to exceed $575,000.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0.
3.
Presentation
3-A Presentation/update on Alameda Point Navy Negotiations and Land Use Planning.
Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager gave a brief update on the AP conveyance
activities. There is a meeting scheduled with the Navy on September 29th to discuss, and come
to a resolution, on the ""divide' in the analysis of the value of the property. The outcome of that
meeting will be reported to the Board at its next regular meeting on October 5th Mr. Proud
introduced Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, to give an update on the Preliminary
Development Concept (PDC).
Mr. Thomas discussed staff's review of comments received from the public and from the ARRA
Board (of the July 14th meeting) and efforts to use this information to make revisions to the PDC.
The revisions include addressing and clarifying a number of issues, such as its role, its purpose,
and the Next Steps to clarify Historic Preservation issues. The document will also be revised to
include an additional appendix in response to some of the requests for more financial information
- the financial trade offs that are embedded within the PDC. The plan is to present the revised
draft PDC to the ARRA Board and the public at the October 5th ARRA Board meeting.
Revisions to the document will be in a red-lined, strikeout version so the public can very clearly
see where changes were made.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-07,2,"Mr. Thomas announced that we received a $250,000 grant Metropolitan Transportation
Commission Grant, a land planning grant to help with next phases of the planning for Alameda
Point, particularly around the transit center. There is also progress toward a memorandum of
agreement with BART on a $485,000. grant, a federal earmark that was received over a year ago
We have been meeting with representatives from the Navy and the Local Historic Preservation
Community to continue the discussion on the Historic Preservation issues that were generated by
the PDC, and that is in the context of the Section 106 consultation which is really a Navy lead
effort. A briefing to discuss the PDC and the 106 consultation process with the Historical
Advisory Board on Alameda Point is planned for October 6th. City Staff has also been invited
to
attend a League of Women's Voters workshop on September 29th and November 15th
Member Daysog called 2 speakers, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, and Neil Garcia
Sinclair of Cybertran who gave a quick update on the Cybertran/University of California/BART
coalition and the proposal of establishing a research center in transportation energy at Alameda
Point.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
5-A Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Councilmember Matarrese was unable to attend last week's RAB meeting, so there is no report.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICAITONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker slip, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the VA,
development at Alameda Point; and various unrelated topics as well.
7. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Daysog welcomed the new City Manager, Debra Kurita, who is also the Executive
Director of the ARRA, to her first ARRA meeting.
8. ADJOURMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:55 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-09-20,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
The meeting convened at 11:37 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Mataresse, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Recommendation to Approve the Fourth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement
between the City of Alameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Approval of the Consent Calendar item was passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-09-20.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Report from the Executive Director recommending the Approval of Alameda Power &
Telecom Sublease at Alameda Point.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Tony Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development concept (PDC) - A
Planning Feasibility Study for the Redevelopment and Reuse of the Former Alameda Naval Air
Station.
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the revised PDC and discussed what the major
revisions were, including: alternative plans approaches, various constraints affecting the layout and
design, and a clarification in the executive summary that the PDC is a feasibility study, and not the
final ""plan"".
The revised PDC also included expanded discussion regarding Measure A issues, and a good
foundation for a solid transportation strategy. Mr. Thomas further summarized the revisions, stating
that the phasing program is conceptual and there was text added to include information on civic
community type facilities, churches and plazas, etc. emphasizing that the general plan calls for these
kinds of uses. There were a number of revisions to the Next Steps chapter, primarily the
environmental review and entitlement process for the first phase should our master developer choose
to proceed.
Chair Johnson called up the several speakers who discussed the following topics:
- concern about the insufficiency of neighborhood centers
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,2,"- a representative from AAPS requested a reuse study be included in the PDC for the historic
buildings
- a representative from the APC expressed their interest in continuing to be involved in the
development plan process
-
a representative from Operation Dignity expressed concerns about the Board accepting the
PDC in draft form
- representatives from HOMES and the Sierra Club expressed their appreciation and support
with the progress of the PDC compared to other developments.
Member Matarrese thanked the staff for providing the input and revisions. He agreed with the
speaker who mentioned that the Board should not approve a draft document; and rather, approve a
final document. He would like to see more information on a green standards plan and a plan for
sustainable communities and expressed concern about the word ""feasibility study"", afraid it might be
dismissed because it does not ""comply"" with the PDC. He further stated that the PDC document is
still conceptual. Members Gilmore and Daysog agreed with Member Matarrese's statements.
Member Daysog would like to see more information on the fiscal implications of the PDC, especially
on Phase II and Phase III.
Member deHaan reminded folks that there was a community reuse plan prior to this PDC, which
included the development of commercial and industrial spaces to maximize transportation.
Member Matarrese motioned for Council to direct staff to simulate the comments that were made
and produce a final document for approval. He requested the document be in red-line/strikeout
format so that revisions are clearly seen in the document.
City Manager, Debra Kurita, recommended that the draft revisions be text-only to save cost. It was
agreed by all Boardmembers to just bring back the document at the regular ARRA Board meeting in
November; there was no need to make a motion for this action.
Steven Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, clarified some points to the Board. He stated that the
PDC is a component of the conditional acquisition agreement (CAA) that we have with APCP. Other
components include getting a conveyance agreement structure set forward with the Navy and then the
completion of the preliminary development concept. Based on the timing with regards to meeting
with the Navy, Mr. Proud recommended the revised document be brought back at the December
meeting, instead of November. All Boardmembers accepted this recommendation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese stated the meeting was the following day.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-10-05,3,"Alex McElree, Executive Director of Operation Diginity, requested the ARRA Board encourage the
City Council to fulfill the promise they made to Operation Dignity and to the homeless through the
homeless conveyance of the McCain/Feinstein Act and build the 39-Units (homes).
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 7, 2005
The meeting convened at 7:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-D
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug DeHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 16, 2004
2-B. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of May 12, 2005
2-C. Approval of the minutes of the Special Meeting of June 1, 2005
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar item. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0;
Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of Revised Alameda Point Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, presented the ""text-only"" changes made to the July 5th Draft
PDC. The changes were made in response to comments heard at the July and October 2005 ARRA
Board meetings. Mr. Thomas summarized the major changes and asked that the ARRA approve the
changes as well as other modifications to the text, and identify final revisions in order to bring a
finalized document back to the Board at its regular meeting in February 2006.
A summary of the changes included:
- clearer description of the purpose of the PDC, identifies it as a planning study and not a
regulatory document without any legally binding effect.
- there is more emphasis and clarity that the plan for Alameda Point is a mixed-use plan,
maintaining financial feasibility and historic preservation.
- recommending work-live ordinance.
1",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,2,"Changes were made in the Introduction, Land Use and the Next Steps chapters emphasizing that it is
the City's goal to have a sustainable environmentally sensitive development at Alameda Point. The
Next Steps chapter outlines the key issues that are still going to require additional study, particularly
the compromises and trade-offs. There is more description about how the non-Measure A
alternative will be evaluated in the EIR process; and further exploration of maintaining historical
preservation, as well as financial possibilities surrounding the historic buildings. Also included are
the next steps to implementing the Transportation Strategy.
Two appendices, the Transportation Strategy (Appendix A) and the Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality (Appendix E), were also revised.
Member Gilmore allowed the several speakers to make their statements prior to the Board making
their comments. The speakers discussed various PDC-related topics, including Historic
Preservation concerns regarding the Big Whites and the Hangars; requests for additional buildings
identified for Historic Preservation be placed on the HAB agenda/study list for February, and to
request and Historic Preservation Master Plan and an Adaptive Reuse Study to be done soon, or as
part of the Navy's Section 106 process. Also discussed concerns about the Seaplane Lagoon
development encroachments and non-measure A alternatives. Consideration of Building 3 for the
Neptune Beach Amusement Museum was discussed.
Alameda School Board representative thanked staff and the ARRA board for including the issues of
school facilities in the PDC. Alternatives in Action representative discussed issues regarding the
early termination of their lease and the ARRA's request of them for removal of a portable building.
Member Daysog asked what were the major changes to Appendix E (Financial Feasibility and Fiscal
Neutrality). Stephen Proud, Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that there was clarity added
to the language and that the financial feasibility study done for the first phase will be replicated for
subsequent phases. There will be a better understanding of the financial feasibility and fiscal
neutrality questions once we are clear on the development programs. Member Daysog further
discussed his concern regarding the Measure A and non-Measure A options, and Phase I revenue
generation. Mr. Proud explained that projections made in the document have a built-in fiscal
mitigation payment which will come directly from project proceeds to offset public expenditures and
public revenues that we collect. Member Daysog requested more detail and clarity on the property
taxes for use on a range of services; he also requested a better understanding on the fiscal mitigation
payment and operational issues.
Member deHaan addressed issues in the body of the PDC and, with the consensus of the other board
members, requested several action items to be completed by staff:
1. Expand the paragraph in the Next Steps chapter to elaborate on the Historic
Preservation - what the Navy is doing concurrent with us on their studies.
2.
Provide more clarity on the commercial development plan for the 336,000 sq. ft. of
retail and identify the commercial endeavors being pursued.
3. Provide separate analysis (off-agenda) on the HazMat clean-up, scenario of costs
between single family vs. multi family, etc. for financial feasibility.
4. Regarding the timeline and series of studies to be completed on the Historic
2",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,3,"Preservation: Emphasize the need to get information at the earliest possible date so that
the information could be used in the process of developing a plan which is then
ultimately evaluated in the EIR, and NOT when the final EIR comes out.
5. Appendix E - What would Phase I of Fiscal Mitigation payment be? And an
explanation of why we are not contemplating municipal services fee (like Bayport)?
6. Continued emphasis that this ""Preliminary"" plan document is a step to a ""Final' plan.
All Boardmembers accepted staff recommendation to bring back a Final version of the PDC in
February 2006.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Boardmember Matarrese reported on the RAB meeting from November because he did not attend
the Dec. meeting (he was attending D.A.R.E.) There was a presentation on the remediation
strategies for Site 27, between Appezzato Memorial Parkway and Nelson's Marine. There were a
wide range of options (9 remediation strategies), and there was a uniform recommendation and vote
to advise the Navy to use the most efficient and rapid remediation strategy.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Marilyn York, Barbara Bach, and Ken Robles of the Alameda Naval Air Museum spoke about their
proposed 10-year lease. Chair Johnson advised that they are looking forward to receiving the lease
for review but have not seen it come to the Board yet.
6.
COMMUNICATIOS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY.
Boardmember Daysog requested the Board address Gail Greeley's issues regarding Home Sweet
Home and moving a portable building. Member Matarrese requested an off-agenda report
addressing this same issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT:
Meeting was adjourned at 9:14 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
3",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2005-12-07,4,4,AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2005-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- January 4, 2006- 6:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Auctions by the Bay, Inc.
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. The ARRA provided directions to
the real property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:55
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 4, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring Procedures for Special Legal
Counsel; Resolution Amending Resolution No. 002 Regarding the Powers and Authority
of the General Counsel.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, pointed out that the only difference between the City
Council policy and the ARRA policy is the unlawful detainer policy.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of 2-B as written, with the caveats to receive a
written report on unlawful detainers and revisit the policy in 6 months. The motion was
seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes -0;
Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation of the Final Preliminary Development Concept (PDC).
Andrew Thomas, Supervising Planner, requested formal acceptance of the PDC. Acceptance of
the PDC represents an important step in completing some obligations made in ARRA's
agreement with the selected master developer, APCP: complete a plan with the help of the
Alameda community to identify the development opportunities at Alameda Point and the key
tradeoffs and challenges.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,2,"Page 2
As described in the plan, the PDC does not represent the FINAL development plan for Alameda
Point. It is a planning study with the basic message that to get through an entitlement process
and a planning process, and to actually see implementation will require some tough compromises
and decisions that have not yet been made. The PDC clarifies that when the important decisions
are made, all the necessary information will be available to the public and to ARRA. Important
issues are emphasized in the Next Steps chapter. The plan for the redevelopment of Alameda
Point will continue to evolve as we move through the entitlement process.
Member Daysog thanked staff for the memo provided by Darin Smith of Economic Planning
Systems (EPS) detailing the assumptions. He requested further sources, methodologies and
assumptions regarding information in Table 3 and in Table 4 - property taxes, assumptions in
terms of housing values, industrial and commercial, property transfer taxes. Member Daysog
explained that this information would be helpful for future generations of Alamedans to track the
fiscal health of this project.
There were several speakers on this item:
Birgitt Evans - represents the Alameda Architecture Preservation Society (AAPS). Thanked
staff and Andrew Thomas for the PDC. Discussed concerns with removal of two seaplane
lagoon hangars (Bldgs. 11 & 12). Recommended construction of height-limited buildings to
preserve vista for future generations.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS - thanked Andrew Thomas. Discussed concerns regarding the timetable
for the Preservation and Adaptive Reuse Studies, and the potential loss of the BOQ, Big Whites,
etc.
Joan Konrad - discussed importance of examining Measure A non-compliant alternative plan for
Alameda Point redevelopment and safe and easy walking distance to destinations - schools,
work and shopping.
Diane Lichtenstein - concerns about the constraints of Measure A. Reiterated that the PDC is
only a draft and wanted to emphasize the flexibility of the plans.
Helen Sause - commended Staff and the City on the PDC, stating that the public input has been
valuable. Discussed priority to see the development without restrictions of Measure A. Urged
ARRA to keep flexibility in development of the PDC and keep the alternative plan that would
permit AP to be developed in accordance with good planning principles.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment portion of this item.
Chair and Boardmembers thanked Andrew Thomas and the staff for the PDC. Member Gilmore
was particularly pleased with staff's response to public input and the Board's comments about
the Next Steps chapter. She emphasized that what's outlined in the Next Steps chapter gets
accomplished, yet not to tie ourselves down to a specific timeline, particularly since we don't yet
have the property. Chair Johnson agreed, stating that it was surprising how many residents don't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,3,"Page 3
know that ARRA does not own the property yet. Member Matarrese repeated the notion of
ensuring ample time for dealing with Historic properties, having advanced notice for ARRA,
Planning, and the public - to understand what's ahead.
Member Daysog motioned for approval of this item. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5: Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3-B. Recommendation to Approve a 20-year Lease with the Department of Transportation
Maritime Administration (MARAD).
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration Manager of DSD, presented the Board with the
lease, gave an overview of MARAD, a tenant on the base since 1997, and explained that the
lease negotiations have been going on since May 2002. The lease being presented included two
components: the lease combines the MARAD warehouse and pier uses.
In addition to generating, under this new lease, a proposed $1.8 M in the first two years with 3%
increases, MARAD is the largest electricity user in Alameda and responsible corporate citizens.
They' ve already spent $1M on dredging, an ARRA obligation, but MARAD put the money up
front. Chair Johnson discussed security fencing, possibilities of reconfiguring least intrusive
manner.
Member deHaan asked whether MARAD discussed possibilities of shouldering relocation of
Hornet and the different scenarios regarding the Hornet's location. Ms Banks replied that
MARAD couldn't make an initial investment and it is an obligation of ARRA, but that the 3%
increase in rent should pay for whatever decision is made. Member deHaan stated that MARAD
should strive to find dollars to relocate the Hornet, since it's to their benefit. Chair Johnson
suggested that MARAD may have better access to homeland security money.
Under the new lease, gross lease revenue for the first 2 years is 1.8M per year. Net is $800,000
to ARRA Chair Johnson requested a copy of pro forma. She also emphasized an important
attachment - Exhibit H - which outlines ARRA's obligations under the lease. Ms. Banks
explained that those obligations were negotiated down from the standard lease.
Member deHaan stated that MARAD is one of the best tenants at Alameda Point, but is
concerned about the 20 year cost to maintain the operation, and that they're not an asset for the
ambience of the development. Member Matarrese doesn't have a problem with MARAD being
here, recognizing that it's a multiple-use development; there is some industrial and commercial
use.
Chair Johnson expressed concern about a provision, in the MARAD lease, relating to Trident.
She questioned why they were intertwined, and why there is not separate, employer liability
insurance.
Terri Highsmith, Assistant City Attorney, explained that insurance is something that MARAD
and the Federal government can't get and it's in our interest to have this insurance in place.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,4,"Page 4
Mike Hampen, PM Realty Group, further explained that liability insurance of piers is required
whether there is a port manager or not. Ms. Banks said that the reference to Trident will be
removed, as there is no reference in naming the port manager in the agreement.
Member Matarrese requested an analysis on the risk assessment and liability of lease, stating that
staff and the City Attorney are being paid to review leases and contracts, not the responsibility of
the ARRA Board (to review leases, etc.). He recommended bringing this item back and the need
to keep MARAD as a tenant, to see the Navy in legacy.
Chair Johnson agreed with Member Matarrese's request, stating she'd like a better definition of
what the potential expenses and risks are. She stated that MARAD is an excellent tenant, and we
don't want to lose them; we just need to understand the lease better. She also requested that the
Trident provision be completely separate and not included in the MARAD lease.
Member Gilmore expressed concern about the lease not being included in the packet for review.
She prefers to receive copies of complex documents and decide how deeply to look at the
documents or how much to rely on the staff report. Chair Johnson recommended that, at the
least, significant attachments (like Attachment H, etc.) be summarized in the staff report, or
be
included in the package.
Without a formal motion, all members agreed to continue this item to the March 1, 2006
ARRA meeting with a request for a more detailed analysis of the ARRA's risk assessment
and obligations under the MARAD lease.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the Jan 5th meeting: The major item on the agenda was
the Petroleum Hydrocarbon Program update, highlighting the status and technical explanations
of the remediation taking place on sites spread across Phase 1 and several in Phase 3. He stated
that there was an amazing mass of contaminants being removed: jet fuel, gasoline, etc. The next
RAB meeting is Thursday, Feb 9.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested an update on the Tinker Ave. / Webster St. exchange, stating that it is
key to fully developing FISC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-02-01,5,"Page 5
Member Matarrese reiterated the Dec. 2004 ARRA-approved intent of requesting all ARRA
leases (and licenses) come to ARRA, so they know what the arrangements are with tenants on
the property and to maintain their responsibility to the LIFOC.
Chair Johnson requested an update on the Hornet. Leslie Little, Development Services Director,
informed the Board that there is no lease negotiations ongoing at the time, and there has not been
an existing lease with the Hornet for 2 years. Ms. Little will provide a report to the Board at the
next meeting. Ms. Little reiterated that updates are provided to the ARRA in monthly financial
reports.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-02-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - March 1, 2006-6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA, US Navy, and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:20
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 1, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-03-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday - April 5, 2006- 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 5, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-04-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- May 3, 2006--6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair
Johnson - 4.
Absent:
Member Daysog.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:25
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 3, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-05-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. June 7, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:08 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 5, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions -
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Certification of Golf Course EIR and Authorization to Proceed with Negotiations
with Port of Oakland and Army Corps of Engineers.
Elizabeth Johnson, Base Reuse Planner, presented an overview and requested certification of the
final EIR for the Alameda Point Golf Course and Hotel Project. The draft EIR was circulated in
2004, with revisions prepared in 2005 to accommodate additional information regarding
wetlands on the site. The response to comments is also complete. Janie Alsep and Mark
Windsor of EDAW, and Jack Fink from Moffat Nichol Engineers, the consultants who assisted
in the preparation of the final EIR, were present to answer questions from the Board.
Chair Johnson asked if there was a time limit to start the project once it is certified. Elizabeth
Johnson explained that the EIR is programmatic which allows us to go forward with negotiating
with the Port or the Army Corp to get materials for the site. Chair Johnson wanted to clarify to
the public that, at this point we haven't seen that the project is economically feasible; that we're
not moving forward with this project, and this is just a very preliminary action. Elizabeth
Johnson concurred and further explained that the point of negotiating to get the dredge material
would be to determine the economic feasibility.
Member Gilmore clarified that if/when the project is determined to be economically feasible, we
would still need a separate EIR for the Hotel/Conference Center. Member deHaan and Elizabeth
Johnson discussed the current dredging at the Port of Oakland and that Alameda Point is the
secondary site to receive this dredge material, the primary site being Hamilton Field Wetland",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-06-07,2,"Page 2
Recreation. In response to member deHaan's question regarding the value of the dredge
materials, should the golf course project NOT go forward, Elizabeth Johnson explained that we
would be paid a Tipping Fee for the dredge materials.
Member Daysog questioned the delay in having an economic analysis. In response, Chair
Johnson reminded the Board that there was a several-year process where this consideration was
going on - we had a Hotel expert and even had an RFP on hotel complexes. At that time,
however, the downturn in the economy left the only people willing to propose a project was that
we owned a five-star hotel and paid them to manage it, and that was something the ARRA
wasn't willing to do. Elizabeth Johnson further discussed that the ARRA, in 2004, directed staff
to go ahead with preparation of the EIR in anticipation of the Hotel market coming back. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, concurred with this discussion,
adding that the hospitality industry has taken a while to bounce back since 9/11. She further
explained that once the EIR is certified, and we negotiate a Tipping Fee with the Army Corp and
the Port of Oakland that makes sense, then we can restudy the issue of the economic viability of
the project.
There was one speaker on this item, David Kerwin, who asked when and how often soil testing
will be done, expressing concern about loosened toxic materials if the property is not used for
a
golf course. Elizabeth Johnson responded that there will be a site-testing protocol in place.
Approval to certify the final EIR was motioned by Chair Johnson and seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 1 (Member
Daysog); Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that he was unable to attend the last meeting and has no report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-06-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-07-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. July 5, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:50 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
Member Gilmore lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 7, 2006.
2-B. Recommendation to Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions
-
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-07-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday- August 2, 2006-5:46 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION:
Name of Case:
Kienowski Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
ARRA gave direction to legal counsel to support the Chapter 11 Plan.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and US Navy
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
Staff briefed the ARRA on the status of negotiations. ARRA provided instructions. No
action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Since Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
August 2, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-08-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
2-A
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of August 2, 2006.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A.
Recommendations to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a Three-Year
Consultant Agreement with Trident Management, Inc. in the amount of $325,000.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, presented an overview of the Trident Management
Agreement and the port services they provide to Alameda Point, primarily to MARAD and the
Navy to Service the ships. Trident has been providing port services for Alameda Point since
September, 1996. Their original contract expired in 2002, and they are currently on a month-to-
month status with an annual rate of $474,636.
In 2004, the operating subsidy to Trident was reduced, and in return, the ARRA relinquished its
share of the Trident sublease revenue. In the fall of 2004, Trident and the City Manager (Jim
Flint) mapped out an agreement for a new five-year contract, which was never memorialized into
a contract. Since that time, staff has been attempting to renegotiate the contract.
Before the Board tonight is a three-year contract that can be mutually agreed upon by the City
and Trident",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,2,"Member Gilmore asked for an explanation of why we did not go out to bid. Ms. Little explained
that, since Trident was the inaugural port service provider, we tried very hard to work something
out with them that was less expensive than what would have been charged historically. Staff
also recommends that at the end of this three year contract that we do go out to bid.
Member Matarrese requested that the Board receive the policy on bidding and what the contract
is, recognizing that it is a legacy and wants to make sure, going forward, we eliminate that
uncertainty.
Approval was motioned by Member Gilmore and seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow (9/7) and will have a report in
October.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, Elected East Bay Regional Park representative, Doug Siden, Alameda
resident. Mr. Siden discussed as background that the EBRPD has been participating with the
City of Alameda in the planning process for the former Naval Air Station over the last 10 years.
EBRPD's concern has been to see parkland included at Alameda Point located at what has been
called Triangle Park (between the Hornet and the City's mini park along the shoreline). It has
always been shown in the studies that this property was going to be a parkland. In support of the
City's process, the EBRPD has applied to the State of California for a grant from Prop. 12
monies, and EBRPD has received $250,000, which is designated for the Triangle Park.
Mr. Siden expressed the concern of the EBRPD that under the provisions of Measure 12, land
tenure has to be secured by the end of this year, and the project has to be completed and the
money expended by the end of next year. So there will be another planning process, but the
money will be lost in terms of the City of Alameda using it at the Triangle Park, if it cannot be
expended by the end of next year. The Park Agency will re-apply and be able to use the grant
money somewhere else, but will need to move forward on an alternative grant use because of the
same requirement of completing the project by next year. EBRPD would like to get started with
the first portion of improvements to the Triangle Park. Included in their plans is to begin
creating a grassy area for picnics, parking, and tie-in with the City park upgrade, with an
interpretive center. They would also like to showcase green building, install solar cells for
energy and upgrade for an aquatic center.
Mr. Siden also discussed Measure AA, a $225m bond with the first 25% going to cities based on
population. The City of Alameda received over $2m, and that money would soon be expended.
EBRPD is looking toward the year 2008 to ask the voters to extend the same provisions so that it
would not be a new tax but rather a continuation of an existing measure.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-06,3,"Member Matarrese and Chair Johnson asked what portion of Triangle Park Improvements the
$250,000 would buy us. Referring to a map, Mr. Siden described the lower end toward Encinal
High School and the City's mini park and said that the EBRPD will maintain it.
Member Matarrese asked the ARRA Executive Director, Debra Kurita, to get staff to work on a
way to accomplish us getting this investment in town. He expressed concern that the deadline
for getting the land dedicated and completing the project is fast approaching and requested this
item be moved up on the priority list and brought back to the ARRA Board.
Debra Kurita responded that staff will agendize and bring this item back to the Board at its next
meeting on October 4, 2006.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted.
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-09-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, September 26, 2006- 6:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding APCP's withdrawal
from Alameda Point and from negotiations with the Navy.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
September 26, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-09-26.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. October 4, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:05 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of September 6, 2006.
Approval of 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-B. Approval of Subleases at Alameda Point.
Member deHaan had questions about two of the subleases due to their duration and requested
information about the specific tenants, as well as an overview of current leasing prospects.
Nanette Banks, Finance and Administration of DSD, explained that TransFreight Express wants
to relocate their corporate headquarters and distribution center at Alameda Point. The other lease
is to Makani for Building 19 to be used as R&D and office space. It is an alternative energy
(wind-based) company that may also be interested in using the runways for experiments. Leslie
Little, Development Services Manager, indicated that there continues to be ongoing interest in
the buildings at Alameda Point, but pointed out the obviously expensive building improvements
necessary to make them usable, which tends to limit some potential businesses.
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
2-C. Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to Execute a contact agreement with
WRT/Solomon E.T.C. in the amount of $250,000 to complete Station Area planning activities
for Alameda Point.
Member deHaan inquired about the source of the $250,000 and whether we are in a position
today to approve the contract, given the master developer situation. Debbie Potter, Base Reuse
and Community Development Manager, explained that this is pursuant to a $250,000 grant
received from MTC - with City contribution of $3,000 - for the purpose of more detailed
planning of the transit node. To not go forward at this time means losing the grant. This study
will impact future land development plans; traffic and transit issues will need to be addressed
regardless of who the developer is.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,2,"Page 2
There was one speaker on this item, Diane Lichtenstein, who praised the four workshops
outlined in the contract and requested that after each workshop a summary report to be generated
(perhaps in the local newspaper as well as the City's website). She also recommended
expanding the scope of the ferry analysis beyond the half-mile radius of the station as presently
indicated. She also requested that all drafts of the report be available electronically.
Approval of 2-C was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Status Report on East Bay Regional Park District Request for Long-Term Lease.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, stated that, at the September
ARRA meeting, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) representatives Doug Siden and Mike
Anderson indicated that EBRPD is ready to begin funding improvements at the 26-acre
Enterprise Park through the use of Measure AA and Proposition 12 money (totaling $500,000).
A portion of the Proposition 12 funds ($100,000) specify that land must be secured by the end of
this year, and the project must be completed and the money expended by the end of next year. It
also requires a 20-year lease on the land. According to the staff report, there could be a smaller,
Phase 1 lease or a lease for the entire 26 acres. There are several other leases in place that
encumber some portions of the 26 acres, including Alameda Soccer Club (until 2008) and the
Hobby Shop (until 2010).
Member Daysog mentioned that 11 years ago, there was concern that EBRPD wanted an RV
parking lot as part of their plan for this land. Ms. Potter confirmed that this is no longer an
option.
Doug Siden, elected EBRPD representative, reiterated the funding and timing requirements. He
introduced Mike Anderson, Assistant General Manager, who presented a map of the proposed
area and plans. It consists of 10.6 acres and excludes current leased properties. Ultimately, the
District would like the entire 26 acres but could start with this plan. Proposed plans include
family picnic sites, clean up of the tennis and basketball courts, development of the shoreline
trail to tie to the existing beach area, and clean up of the beach and boat launch areas. Future
plans include a natural planning resource area and interpretive center, as well as boating
instruction at the marina.
Chair Johnson pointed out that other community groups have looked at this site, and also
questioned what would happen if the community would rather keep some of the facilities as they
are. Mr. Anderson responded that if the City prefers to have more community input about use of
this area, EBRPD could either use $100,000 of the funds somewhere else in order to not lose
them - trimming their ultimate project to $400,000 - or use that first $100,000 to simply clean
up the beach area and shoreline trail. Chair Johnson stressed that more community feedback
about what type of use for the area is preferable is needed before committing to a 20-year lease.
Member Matarrese felt that the primary areas to spend the $500,000 should be the beach, bay
trail and picnic grounds. Mr. Anderson agreed that this should be doable and hoped to move",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,3,"Page 3
forward in negotiating a lease for these specific areas. Member deHaan expressed his desire that
EBRPD continue to be involved in the area and asked how the funding stream would be
maintained in the future. Mr. Anderson indicated that possibly a small assessment district would
have to be established if the project becomes larger. Member Matarrese stated that he would like
a long-term commitment from EBRPD for the area. The consensus among ARRA members and
EBRPD was the first priority is extending the Bay Trail from the boat ramp along the beach to
the Hornet; if additional funds remain, the other areas will be considered.
Member Matarrese motioned that EBRPD make improvements on the Bay Trail from the
existing boat ramp as far north as possible, including cleaning up the beach. If additional
funds remain, they would be used for the picnic area and former RV parking lot. Staff was
directed to negotiate a lease with EBRPD to accomplish this. Member Daysog seconded the
motion, and the motion passed unanimously.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update.
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an Alameda Point update
presentation to the Board. The presentation included a chronology of the ARRA's negotiations
with the Navy and an explanation to the community on how we went from ""no cost"" to paying
$108.5 million for the Navy property. Ms. Potter also discussed the master developer, APCP's,
election not to proceed with the project and presented staff's recommendation for an initial next
step.
Ms Potter summarized the genesis of how we got from a no cost EDC to a 108.5 million dollar
purchase price: She explained how the ARRA's PDC and the general plan call for over 3 million
square feet of commercial development. In January 2004, however, the Navy sent a letter
requesting that we submit a formal amendment to our ""no-cost"" EDC application to formerly
make the case about why we felt like we continued to be eligible for a ""no-cost"" EDC. The
Navy's letter further stated that it could not continue to work with us to negotiate on our early
transfer without such an amendment. The letter also said that they were more than happy to
negotiate a ""for-cost"" EDC with the ARRA. Because the Navy would be the ultimate entity to
deciding whether or not we were still eligible for the no cost EDC and because they had clearly
communicated to us that they felt we were no longer eligible and because legislation was in the
works to preclude no cost EDC's in the future, the ARRA made a decision that it would be more
effective if we sat down and negotiated with the Navy for a for-cost""conveyance. We started
our ""New Beginnings"" with the Navy in 2004 but the federal government also eliminated no cost
economic development in 2004 and none of the bases that are closed as part of the BRAC 5 are
going to eligible for a no cost economic development conveyance, most of those properties are
going to be disposed of as is where is. So it took us a little over 2 years to negotiate with the
Navy to prepare the PDC and to negotiate a land price. And in June of this year we concluded
negotiations with the Navy with a draft term sheet that included a $108.5 million dollar purchase
price. On September 21st, APCP withdrew from the project, citing the downturn in the
residential market and that they could no longer support the $108.5 million line price given the
land plan.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,4,"Page 4
With that negotiation process and chronology behind us, and the withdrawal of our Master
Developer, Staff is proposing, as the initial next step, that we test the market through a request
for qualifications (RFQ) process with the current term sheet. In the event that we are unable to
identify a replacement development then we would work with the Navy on an alternate
disposable strategy, most likely a public sale, an approach that the Navy had been taking of late.
Chair Johnson asked about the on-going work with the Navy, in the event that a buyer under the
current term sheet doesn't come forward. Ms. Potter answered that we will continue to run our
leasing program, and the Navy will continue to run it's environmental clean up program. Chair
Johnson also asked about the cost of working with the Navy to move forward with alternatives if
a replacement developer isn't identified. Ms. Potter explained that the ARRA's budget did
consider a scenario where the master developer didn't go forward and staff is funded in the
ARRA budget and consultants would probably need far fewer consultants then we've had when
we've been in activity negotiations on a term sheet and those kind of things, but we would still
need to work with our environmental consultant and our out side counsel, those costs are
included in the ARRA's budget.
To answer Chair Johnson's question about what types of consultants would we still continue to
need, Ms. Potter answered that we would continue to use an environmental consultant because
we comment on all of the Navy environmental clean up documents. Chair Johnson asked if we
should ask the Navy to pay for the consultants at that point.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, clarified that these are consultants that we use to
protect the City's interest when it comes to the work that the Navy's doing on clean up as well as
if there gonna be issuing opinions about the tidelands trust, then we need to have our experts
weighing in about the tidelands trust and where were believe the legal issues are and those kinds
of things.
Member Daysog began a discussion regarding the ARRA's no-cost EDC agreement with the
United States Navy. He referenced several paragraphs of the Navy's letter to Debbie Potter dated
April 7, 2003 regarding the basis for the Navy approval of a no cost EDC. Member Daysog is
very concerned about the $108 million purchase price, stating that if APCP couldn't work
it
through, that it would be difficult to find a replacement master developer. He'd rather see the
$108 million go toward public amenities that have been contemplated.
The Chair, Boardmembers and Staff discussed, at length, the challenges we faced and the
available options we continue to deal with in order to move forward. Member deHaan and Chair
Johnson discussed researching a concept that looks at phases in the future to anticipate changes
in the market. The Board also expressed their interest in going back to a no-cost EDC (build less
residential), but Ms. Potter explained that, according to the Navy, a no-cost EDC was dead,
because a project that included less residential was not economically viable. She said, however,
that if the ARRA desires, we could continue discussions with the Navy about convincing them
that were still eligible for our no cost EDC. She further discussed that the ARRA does have an
agreement, an executed MOA with the Navy, but that the Navy is going to require us to submit
an amendment to that no cost EDC.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,5,"Page 5
David Brandt further clarified the more fundamental legal problem which is, we would have to
amend our EDC application and unfortunately, the Navy will argue that there's no more legal
authority over a no cost EDC so we would be essentially be giving up our no cost EDC.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese would like more information and analysis about whether
we are legally able to hold the Navy to the existing no-cost EDC agreement.
Member Daysog expressed the importance of involving the public so that the $108 million isn't
spent on projects that veer so far away from the community resource reuse plan and the public
amenities that have already been contemplated. Ms. Potter addressed Member Daysog's concern
by noting that the negotiated price of $108.5 million was based on a proforma that provided
fiscal neutrality, provided for the sports complex, provided for the open space, provided for 25%
affordable housing, so all of the goals that has been identified over the years were taken into
account and provided for with that land purchase price. Granted that tax increment was pledged
to the project that was part of it too, but it provided in all of the transit, the shuttle, the ecopath is
all of the things that have been talked about over the last several years, were all accounted for in
the proforma that had the $108.5 million dollar land purchase price.
Member deHaan asked about the process used at other closed military bases, including Mare
Island and the Presidio. David Brandt explained that the Presidio was conveyed under a trust but
that federal legislation is needed for that. Mr. Brandt said that we could approach our delegation
to ask if that's feasible.
The first speaker on this item, Pam Telschow, expressed how glad she was that the ARRA was
going back to consider every option and that they are not just going to jump into looking for a
new Master Developer. Chair Johnson expressed her opinion that she felt it was a remote
possibility that another developer would just step right in where APCP left off. The second
speaker, Helen Sause, also echoed Ms. Telschow's concerns and the direction of the Board,
urging them to select and find those developers that have very deep experiences in commercial,
light industrial retail, and other forms of development. She also suggested that the selection
process involve the community. Chair Johnson wanted the public to have a full understanding
that although the Development Services Dept. has received numerous inquiries, those inquiries
may not be viable. The third speaker, Elizabeth Krase, recommended we find a master developer
that would keep keeps more of the historic buildings.
Member Matarrese commented that he is heartened by the attendance of tonight's meeting and
that it's very important that we also look at the strength of our controls on the planning and our
city restrictions on development. He further stated that the comments from the speakers are
valuable and would like to see them translated into where we go forward. Member Daysog
commented that it's absolutely vital for the City of Alameda through the ARRA to continue to be
a leader in converting the base and to not allow the Navy to be in the drivers seat through
a
public action process. There was further discussion about the caretaking of the property and
requesting that the Navy return to those responsibilities.
Debbie Potter summarized the direction from the Board and other issues to explore: researching
the legality and shear logistics of the numbers to see if we can revert back to a no-cost EDC; the",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-10-04,6,"Page 6
parallel path of moving forward with an RFQ process to see if there is a developer who wants to
step into the existing field; a public sale; federal legislation on a trust; caretaker issues, etc.
A motion to initiate an RFQ and to reevaluate all other options discussed was motioned by
Chair Johnson and seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote:
Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Member Matarrese attended the September 7th meeting, highlighting issues regarding additional
radiological testing of sites 1,2, and 32. There was also an update on site 25, the Coast Guard
north housing and a observation of a violation of the marsh crust ordinance (trenching and
digging). Member Matarrese would like the City to investigate further.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Per Member Matarrese's earlier discussion of the RAB meeting regarding Site 25, Member
deHaan requested an update at the next regular ARRA meeting on the status of Site 25.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-10-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. November 1, 2006
The meeting convened at 7:19 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Tony Daysog, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Absent: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approval of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 4, 2006.
Member Daysog pulled Item 2-A to articulate what he meant when he referenced certain letters
regarding the ARRA's No-Cost EDC with the Navy. He reiterated his point that if we could
return to the original understanding of the housing units that could be built-out per the
documents agreed to by the ARRA and the Navy, perhaps we would not have to pay the
$108,000 million the navy is now requiring. Member Daysog wanted to make sure this point
was captured in this evening's meeting, since it was missed in the Minutes of October 4th.
2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 3; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Gilmore was not present
at the 10-4-06 ARRA meeting).
2-B. Recommendation to approve consultant agreement with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers for
Pier Condition Analysis at Alameda Point in an amount not to exceed $170,226
Approval of 2-B was motioned by Member Daysog, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Project Update
Debbie Potter, Acting Alameda Point Project Manager, gave an overview on the Master
Developer RFQ process. At the direction of the Board, the RFQ was issued on October 19th with
a mandatory bidder's conference on Monday, October 30th. There were 20 firms that attended
the bidder's conference. All due diligence documents were provided on a CD and an FTP site
available for all interested firms, and a comprehensive download of the land planning, the
environmental issues, the public trust, summary of term sheet; and an opportunity for those
present to ask questions. One-on-one meetings were also offered with the firms intending to
respond, with nine firms signed up. Responses are due December 4, 2006 and need to be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,2,"Page 2
accompanied by a $20,000 non-refundable filing fee. The responses received will be evaluated
and brought back to the ARRA should we receive responses with a recommendation to enter into
a 45-day negotiation period.
There was one speaker slip, Andrew Slifka, long-time Alameda resident and also a representative
of the Carpenter's Union in Alameda County, and speaking on behalf of the Construction
Building Trades Council of Alameda County. Mr. Slifka addressed concerns and disappointment
with the Alameda Point Community Partners (APCP) withdrawal from the project since they had
a Project Labor Agreement with APCP. He urged the Board to look at the same requirements for
any developer that should come forward, because Project Labor agreements bring value to the
community, well-paying jobs with benefits, careers and local work opportunities.
Member Daysog asked if specific questions regarding the financing of the project were outlined
in the RFQ. He commented on the financing/business model associated with revitalizing the
Catellus project and how it was distinct from the business model that was employed for the rest
of Alameda Point. He also discussed incorporating a different business model.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, responded that developers will be asked who their
source of capital is and for a deposit of ""earnest money"" in the amount or $1 million before a
developer is selected. This information will be provided to the Board.
Member Daysog asked if the potential developers understood the amount of property open for
redevelopment. Ms. Potter responded that the $108 million purchase price is based on Phases 1
and Phases 2, which is essentially everything but the Wildlife Refuge and the area south of
Atlantic Ave. and north of the 26-acre park, plus the golf course. David Brandt also clarified that
we were careful to let the developers know that the PDC wasn't an entitlement.
Member Matarrese asked whether a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) was presented to the
bidders as part of the package that APCP (former master developer) put together. Debbie Potter
responded that a PLA was not included in the RFQ and that it was not a requirement of the City
when the first master developer was selected; but that a PLA was voluntarily agreed to by at least
two out of the three finalists during the first master developer selection process.
Member Matarrese requested that bidders be notified that a PLA was part of the original
agreement and that the City does have a policy on prevailing wage. He was concerned that
bidders would try to make their numbers work at the cost of labor. Ms. Potter said that a copy of
the previously agreed-to document will be posted on the RFQ FTP site.
Member deHaan discussed extending the current month-to-month leasing policy to a year-to-
year policy in anticipation that the master developer would start taking down property. David
Brandt acknowledged that the current ARRA direction is that all leases over a year come to the
ARRA, and that potential tenants are told that redevelopment is imminent so long term leases are
not being offered. This is being reevaluated to decide whether to start bringing longer term leases
to the ARRA.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,3,"an agreement (not even actually shoveling dirt or tearing down buildings, etc.) David Brandt
responded that the soonest would be two years. Member Gilmore commented that this increases
the timeframe ""window"" and recommended that when staff returns in January with the study
session of the leases, it might be worthwhile to take a look at not just the 3rd and 4th phases, but
the 1st and 2nd phases, too. Ms. Little clarified that we will be presenting an entire overview of
all the leasing and it can be compared against the PDC.
No action was taken on this item - it was an update and for informational purposes only.
3-B. Alameda Point Environmental Remediation Update: Western Shoreline - IR Sites
1,2, and 32, Soil at IR Site 25 (Coast Guard North Housing), and Compliance with
Marsh Crust Ordinance
Debbie Potter gave an update on the clean-up status of these specific IR sites, as requested at the
October 4 ARRA meeting. Peter Russell, environmental consultant from Russell Resources, was
available to answer questions from the Board as a follow-up to the staff report provided.
Member Matarrese's main concern was the Navy's option to install an engineered cap rather than
a soil cover over landfill waste. Member Matarrese, along with the rest of the Board members,
discussed at length their preferred alternative: having the Navy scoop out the landfill sites and
haul it away.
Debbie Potter discussed the process by which Peter Russell reviews all documents the Navy
promulgates regarding all IR sites. She explained that we comment during the public comment
period, but we do it at a staff level. She agrees with Member Gilmore about the policy-level
decision that we want clean-up to a level that supports the community reuse plan and the PDC,
and that the Navy has committed to clean-up to the reuses that are identified in the PDC. Ms
Potter further explained, and reiterated by Peter Russell, that the ARRA-preferred option to
scoop and haul the landfill is not economically feasible - and an engineered cap is potentially
equally effective. She said that the City advocated the engineered cap since the beginning when
we secured the pilot grant from EPA. Ms. Potter stated that the engineered cap is financially
viable and is scientifically the best solution, a decision staff concluded in consultation with
environmental experts.
Member Matarrese commented that he had issues with the feasibility, that it didn't sound so
daunting at the RAB meetings and that the scoop and haul option is actually feasible. Peter
Russell responded that from a technical standpoint, the scoop and haul option would cost more.
Debbie Potter sought direction from the ARRA as to a response for the public comment period
due to the Navy by Nov. 10th",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-11-01,4,"Page 4
Member Matarrese motioned to direct staff to submit a letter to the Navy during the public
comment period to include the ARRA policy aspect and endorse the preferred solution of
scoop and haul, rather than an engineered cap. This motion was seconded by Member
Daysog and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
Report was covered in discussion of Item 3-B, above.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Mayoral Candidate, Kenneth Kahn, stated that it would be an honor to serve with all of the
members of the Board.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan clarified a comment that was made regarding parolees working at Alameda
Point. He stated that we indeed had parolees working at Alameda Point about 10 years ago
through the Volunteers of America Program, under the control of the Navy. He explained that
we were short of man-power, so we utilized San Quentin inmates that were being transitioned for
landscaping and maintenance.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-11-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2006-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 6 2006- 6:15 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog
and Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session at 7:00 p.m. to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties: ARRA and Alameda Point Community Partners
Under negotiation: Price and Terms
ARRA staff provided the ARRA with facts and background information regarding disputes
with Trident Management Inc., our port managers. Direction given to staff. Nothing more
to report at this time.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:12
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2006",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2006-12-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. January 2, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 6, 2006.
2-B. Approve Subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Recommendation to Authorize the Executive Director to Execute a 3rd Amendment to the
Standards of Reasonableness to Modify the Allowed Uses for Building 613.
Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese
and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 4; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 1 (Member Tam
was not present at the 12-6-06 ARRA meeting).
Approval of Items 2-B and 2-C was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report as Member Matarrese was unable to attend the last RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed opportunities of the cruise ship industry, citing that the docking of
cruise ships in San Francisco earned $10 million per year. Member deHaan requested that staff",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-01-02,2,"Page 2
investigate this opportunity further, particularly the deep water docks included in the MARAD
lease. Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said the item will be agendized and be brought back to
the ARRA.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday. February 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 2, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve Sublease for Tenant at Alameda Point.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5; Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Selection of a New Master Developer for Alameda Point.
Each of the four master developer teams provided a formal presentation to the Board, in the
following order, chosen at random: Lennar, Suncal, United World Infrastructure, Catellus. After
the formal presentations, there were several public speakers, most of who encouraged the Board
to not make a selection tonight and/or until further information was provided by each of the
teams. At approximately 9:50 p.m., Chair Johnson closed the public comment period and
recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. After the recess, each team approached the podium and
answered questions from the Board. Because of the in-depth nature of the questions, the Board
allowed the teams an opportunity to take the questions as ""homework"" and provide responses at
a later date to be determined.
The Board requested canceling the Regular ARRA meeting of March 7 to consider
scheduling a Special ARRA Meeting on March 21 to continue this item. The Regular
ARRA meeting of April 4 will be the fall-back date in case staff isn't ready by 3/21.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-02-07,2,"Page 2
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
The RAB meeting on Feb. 1 gave a very interesting presentation on heat removal of volatile
materials in the groundwater and in the soil. Apparently when the electro-heaters are activated,
they use more electricity than the entire rest of the island. It heats the grounds up to 28 feet deep
up to 98 degrees C, which is just under boiling. It takes approximately 1.5 years to cool back
down but is a very effective means of remediation currently in progress at two sites: Bldg 360
(Phase 2 and very contaminated), and Parcel 17 near the seaplane lagoon east. There was also an
update of that area with a data gap sampling near the Hornet soccer field and bay trail. Surface
samples upwind of the Hornet soccer field was highlighted as an area of concern.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Eugenie Young spoke about the cruise ship opportunities at Alameda Point.
At approximately 11:52 p.m., Member Matarrese moved to continue the meeting beyond
midnight, seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5,
Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Bill Smith spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:59 p.m with a moment of silence in honor of Assistant City
Attorney, Byron Toma's father, Takeyuki Toma, aka ""Dick"" Toma, who passed away this
weekend. He served in WWII as part of the 447th Japanese American Regiment.
Respectfully submitted,
Stune Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-02-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-04-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 4, 2007- - 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and Chair Johnson
- 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (ANAM; USS Hornet; Puget
Sound International)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented reports to the ARRA regarding the status of the leases with ANAM, USS Hornet,
and Puget Sound International. Staff solicited and received guidance and direction as to each of
the leases.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Alameda Point Tenants (Edge Innovations)
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff presented a report to the Board and the Board provided direction to Staff.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Initiation of Litigation (Gov. Code section 54956.9(c))
Number of cases: 1
Staff presented recommendation to the Board. Direction given to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Strugg
Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
April 4, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-04-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday. May 8, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:13 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Beverly Johnson, Chair of Alameda
Marie Gilmore, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Doug deHaan, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Frank Matarrese, Boardmember, City of Alameda
Lena Tam, Boardmember, City of Alameda
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 4, 2007.
2-B. Review and approve all new and existing subleases at Alameda Point.
2-C. Disposition of Personal Property - Proposed Sale of 45 Foot Yard Tug Boat.
Item 2-C. was withdrawn. Approval of items 2-A and 2-B. was motioned by Member
Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 5;
Noes - 0; Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Consideration of Master Developer Partnership Agreement and Master Developer
Selection.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview on the
status of the of the Master Developer process. She summarized that, on April 4, the ARRA
selected Catellus and Lennar Urban as co-master developers and the Board requested they return
with a Partnership Agreement in 30 days. On May 2nd Catellus and Lennar submitted a non-
binding term sheet that described general provisions that would be included in a yet-to-be-
determined Operating Agreement. The term sheet contemplated a 60-day time frame for
completing the partnership agreement. The evaluation team reviewed the term sheet and
concluded that it raised more questions than answers regarding the potential to reach a
partnership agreement. Missing terms included: the use of third party equity capital, how
additional partners could be added, and what constitutes default under the agreement. Important
items deferred were remedies for breach of contract, dispute resolution, percentage of vertical
development reserved for each partner, etc. Concerns about the ultimate management structure,
cost of third party equity funds vs. self financing and approach to development resulted in the
determination that it was unlikely a partnership agreement can be negotiated that maximizes
timely, cost effective, market driven redevelopment of Alameda Point. Staff recommended that
the Board reconsider the partnership approach and select one master developer. Staff identified
Catellus as the better partner for ARRA as they are self financing and their minimum IRR
requirement is the lowest.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,2,"Page 2
Each of the master developer teams was given 10 minutes to make final comments (in this order:
Catellus, Lennar, and SunCal) before the Board began discussion of the item.
There was one public speaker, Richard Rutter, who discussed his support of staff's
recommendation to select one Master Developer.
The following motions were made:
Member Matarrese motioned to set aside the Partnership Agreement approach and select
just one Master Developer. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice vote: Ayes - 4, Noes - 1 (Gilmore).
Member Matarrese motioned to appoint Catellus as the Master Developer. Motion was
seconded by Chair Johnson and failed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 2 (Matarrese,
Johnson), Noes - 3 (Tam, deHaan, Gilmore).
Member Tam motioned to select SunCal as the Master Developer. Motion was seconded
by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice vote: Ayes - 3 (Tam, deHaan,
Gilmore), Noes - 2 (Johnson, Matarrese).
3-B. Approve Draft Comment Letters on Record of Decision for Installation Restoration
Sites 1 and 25 and Authorize Executive Director to Submit Comment Letters to the
Navy.
At the last meeting, Member Matarrese asked staff to prepare comments on the draft ROD for
Sites 1 and 25. Member Matarrese requested that the bottom-line and desires of the ARRA is
stated right up front as an introduction of the letters.
Member Matarrese moved to approve the letters with the edit of repeating the end goal
right at the front of the letter. Motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, RAB representative.
There was no report, as Member Matarrese was on vacation and did not attend the meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There was one speaker, David Howard, who spoke about car-ownership for low income
individuals and families of the affordable housing development at Alameda Point.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-05-08,3,"Page 3
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:57 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-05-08.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 6, 2007-6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
2151 Ferry Point, Alameda, CA
Negotiating parties:
City of Alameda and Alameda Naval Air Museum
Under negotiation:
Lease price and terms
ARRA received an oral briefing from its Real Property Negotiator, no action was taken.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal Companies
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator regarding the status of
negotiations with SunCal, and provided negotiating direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 6, 2007",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-06-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,1,"Approved
Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the
City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:53 p.m. with Mayor/Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor/Chair Beverly Johnson
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Marie Gilmore
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Doug deHaan
Councilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner Frank Matarrese
Vice Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Lena Tam
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Item 2-A. Recommendation to Approve Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between
ARRA, CIC, City of Alameda (Alameda) and SCC Alameda Point, LLC (SunCal).
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, introduced staff and those involved in the ENA
process: for SunCal was Bill Myers, Amy Freilich, their Counsel, and Steve Elieff, President of
SunCal. For ARRA was Matt Fragner, Real Estate transaction attorney and special Counsel to
the ARRA, and Jim Musbach Financial Consultant from EPS.
Ms. Little gave a powerpoint presentation as an overview of the ENA process, citing the purpose
of the ENA:
-
Define redevelopment and entitlement process for Alameda Point
-
Provide a framework for negotiation of a Disposition and Development Agreement
-
Establish a process for negotiating and executing various other transaction
documents.
Included in the presentation was a summary of the major terms of the ENA, including the length
of term, schedule of performance, initial payment and cost recovery, project labor agreement,
fiscal neutrality, project pro forma, existing city leases, and transfers.
Next steps included:
-
SunCal to provide a pre-development schedule for achieving mandatory and non-
mandatory milestones within 30 days to be updated quarterly
-
SunCal, in conjunction with ARRA staff, to commence project planning and
negotiations
At the conclusion of the presentation, there was concern by all Councilmembers/Boardmembers/
Commissioners of three issues included in the ENA, specifically regarding: 1) the financial
structure and knowledge of who the financial partners are before the DDA process, including the
reference to the 5% contribution relative to the DDA; 2) the liability of the acquisition price of
$108.5M ; and 3) prohibiting transfers during the ENA period.
At 9:50 p.m., Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess so that the SunCal team could discuss these
issues with their principals. The meeting reconvened at 10:22 p.m.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-07-18,2,"Matt Fragner, with the Councilmember's/Boardmember's/Commissioner's approval, revised and
recited the precise language modifying the three specific issues of the ENA.
ouncilmember/Boardmember/Commissioner deHaan motioned to approve the ENA with
the modifications to the specific sections in the ENA. Motion was seconded by Vice
Mayor/Boardmember/Commissioner Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5 Ayes,
0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:27 by Mayor/Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-07-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, August 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:54 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Absent: Boardmember Marie Gilmore
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of July 18, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council/Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority/Community Improvement Commission of July 18, 2007.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o
noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve a 12-Month Contract with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. in the
Amount of $185,000 to Provide Negotiation Support and to Conduct a Fiscal Impact
Analysis for the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Leslie Little gave an overview of the contract and work scope of Economic and Planning
Systems (EPS), explaining that they will assist in developing the business plan and fiscal impact
assessment for Alameda Point. Leslie affirmed Chair Johnson's question about whether the cost
will be reimbursed by SunCal. Member Matarrese clarified that, since EPS is the current
financial consultant under contract with the ARRA, this is an extension of that contract. Chair
Johnson encouraged holding negotiation briefings and sessions in open session, to the extent
possible, in order to keep the public better informed on significant issues. Member Matarrese
agreed and complimented staff, stating that having the last ENA negotiations right in full public
view was successful.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the contract, seconded by Member deHaan and
passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes (Member Gilmore absent), 0 noes, 0
abstentions.
3-B. Authorize Executive Director to Initiate Negotiations for a Short Term Large Parcel
Lease and Caretaker Agreement for the Former Alameda Naval Air Station North Housing
Complex",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-08-07,2,"David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, summarized to the Board that the Navy's caretaker
obligations for the former North Housing Complex will expire in September, and recommends
that the ARRA assume caretaker and maintenance responsibilities. He discussed that it would be
a simple conveyance to gain control of the property so that it can be leased. The property is still
fully operational but deteriorating rapidly. Mr. Brandt discussed the BRAC process: as soon as
the property is declared as surplus, the Local Reuse Authority (ARRA) is responsible for
screening the property. This process could take as long as a year, but there are several options
for conveyance, including a public benefit conveyance for the park, a homeless accommodation
request, or negotiated EDC for cost. Chair Johnson suggested trying to acquire all the property.
Member deHaan questioned the legal ramifications for the conveyance process, and taking over
with a no-cost EDC. Mr. Brandt explained that the Navy's position is that they are not governed
by the old BRAC rules - that they are applying the post-2005 ""No no-cost EDC"" rules. All
Boardmembers agreed that the ARRA should move forward expeditiously in order to preserve
the parkland and prevent further deterioration of the property.
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the staff recommendation with further direction
to convey the entire property (Marina Village and North Housing complex) to the City.
The motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4
ayes (Member Gilmore absent), o noes, o abstentions.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Bill Smith spoke about various topics including clean-up problems, liquefaction, and the surplus
housing at former North Housing.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed a side trip tour he had of Fort Ord with Mr. Michael Houlimard, and
compared the Fort Ord redevelopment project with the Alameda Point project. Member deHaan
explained that at Fort Ord, they are only redeveloping 8 acres (out of 28,000 acres) of disturbed
land. The rest became one habitat or recreation areas. He expressed how successful the Fort Ord
project is because they focused on their award-winning Community Reuse Plan, which, to their
benefit, had many special interests, including the University of California and two major retail
operations, one lifestyle and one big box. Even the Army itself wanted to retain some of the
property. Member deHaan further explained that Fort Ord's reuse authority could dissolve in the
next two years, since their cash flow has put them into a positive, quite contrary to where
Alameda Point is. Fort Ord has also begun building a phase of housing units around the existing
golf course (there will be 12,000 residential units total); there is one hotel and another bid for a
Ritz Carlton. Member deHaan attributes the success of the Fort Ord project to their focus on the
community reuse plan, their expedient manner and that they did not veer from that plan.
Member Matarrese suggested agendizing a report of the Fort Ord project as an update and called
to move the agenda.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:34 by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-08-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The meeting convened at 9:34 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 7, 2007.
2-B. Approve Two-Year Sublease for Architectural Glass & Aluminum at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Proposed Sale and Disposition of Surplus Property at Alameda Point, Itemized
as Five Rapid Electric Rectifiers, One Industrial Oven, Two Abrasive Blasters, and One
Abar Ipson IVD Machine, for a Total Amount of $84,000 in Revenue to the ARRA.
2-D. Approval to Provide Building 24 for No Cost for Alameda Boys & Girls Club Fundraiser.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-D. Approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar was
motioned by Member deHaan, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the
following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions. Member Gilmore abstained from Item
2-A (Aug. 7 Minutes), as she was absent from that meeting.
Member deHaan asked why Item 2-D was brought before the ARRA on short notice. Debbie
Potter, Base Reuse & Community Development Manager, explained that the ARRA Board meets
once a month, and often times requests come through, particularly from non-profits or small
businesses that might not be familiar with the steps and processes necessary to approve their
requests. Their lack of familiarity that any requests would have to come to the board is the
reason for the short notice, and as soon as the request was received, it was placed on the agenda.
Ms. Potter further explained that it is not unusual to take and approve requests for fee-waivers
from non-profits; but in the past, this was done administratively, and just more recently, the
policy was to bring these requests to the ARRA.
Member deHaan motioned to approve Item 2-D, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Master Project Schedule Prepared by SCC
Alameda Point LLC",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,2,"Debbie Potter summarized the Alameda Point project to date and introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's Project Manager, to present the Master Project Schedule. The ENA calls for the master
plan to be prepared initially, and updated on a quarterly basis and presented to the ARRA. The
first update of the Master Schedule will be presented in the Dec. - Jan. timeframe.
Pat Keliher walked through highlights of the Project Master Schedule and explained that the
schedule was put together in a logical manner, first with the public planning process, which
clearly is important to set the stage for a final development plan. The first community meeting
will be scheduled very soon, and consist of land, site, design constraints and charettes. The
second stage of public process includes returning back to the public to present a development
concept. Mr. Keliher emphasized how critical it is to remain consistent and continue the public
process throughout the project timeline. Next critical item on the schedule is the traffic, location,
and infrastructure impacts of the VA issue and scope of their project. Mr. Keliher stated that
SunCal began early on working together with the VA.
The next key phase is the Planning and Entitlement phase where the development concept,
public amenities, adaptive reuse, and historic district issues are refined. Mr. Keliher explained
that SunCal has met with members of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS),
and with Chris Buckley and Richard Rutter, to evaluate buildings and uses in the historic district.
SunCal's next key item on the schedule is the submittal of the Entitlement Application in March
2008. Mr. Keliher did not go into detail with the balance of schedule which includes the DA,
DDA, CAA, Business Plan, MOA, Tidelands Trust Agreement, etc. He further explained that the
NEPA & CEQA processes can't start until project description is in place. He expressed how
critical the next three to six months are and that SunCal is committed to meeting the milestones.
Member Matarrese focused on the zoning issue and asked when Zoning will be adopted. He
requested that the Zoning is put under the control of the City and is locked so that the City
protects itself. Debbie Potter explained that the city anticipates the entitlement package
(Development Agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment,
Zoning amendment, and Master Plan) will all come together as one package, and, pursuant to the
ENA allows this in July 2009. One of the mandatory milestones is the submittal of an initial
entitlement package by May 2008, which will trigger the CEQA process. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, explained that the milestone is not an actual exchange, just a framework
agreement of how we'll proceed. Chair Johnson requested it is made clear that the milestone is a
framework. Mr. Brandt further explained that once the CEQA process is complete, the City
Council can then adopt Zoning, but legally it cannot be done without an environmental review
process. Member Matarrese expressed concern about zoning changes and that any changes have
to go thru the City so that it is not left open if the Navy decides to change the rules. Debbie
Potter explained that the intent is to execute all required documents simultaneously such that we
protect our existing position as our role as the trustee. Ms. Potter assured that she will discuss
with the Planning dept. about whether or not the existing EIR done for the General Plan
Amendment is sufficient, or whether we will have to undertake additional environmental review.
An update on this issue will be reported at the Oct. ARRA meeting.
Member deHaan asked if the Navy will be able to meet the timeline, and if not, what the
consequences are. David Brandt stated that we cannot guarantee that the Navy will perform and
we cannot control third party delay. Debbie Potter stated that we should be hearing from the
Navy about the schedule in the next day or so.
Member Gilmore commented that our sense of urgency does not match the Navy's and that they
need to come to the realization that time is money for everyone involved. The costs of",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-09-04,3,"construction, infrastructure, etc. makes the project difficult, and the factors that affect our
developer, and would affect any developer, affects the Navy as well.
Pat Keliher stated that SunCal has a tactical strategy to deal with the Navy - that they have a
streamlined process of sharing technical studies and other documents that underpin the CEQA &
NEPA processes; but that there are still a lot of unknowns, including whether there will be
funding for clean-up. Chair Johnson compared the Oaknoll site to Alameda, that Oaknoll was a
clean site without Tidelands Trust issues. Mr. Keliher reiterated SunCal's commitment to the
challenging, but necessary task, stating that SunCal would work with the City of Alameda, their
consultants and lobbyists, to deal with the changing climate ahead that may affect things moving
forward.
The Board thanked Mr. Keliher and SunCal for presenting the Master Project Schedule and
expressed it was a job well done.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:07 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-09-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Vice Chair Tam presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
Chair Johnson arrived at 7:52 p.m. (during item 3-B).
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 4, 2007.
2-B. Approve Three-Year Sublease for Sustainable Technologies at Alameda Point.
2-C. Approve the Waiver of License Fee for Alameda Unified School District Student Activities.
2-D. Authorize the Executive Director to Amend the Consultant Agreement with Trident
Management, Inc. to Modify Exhibit C and Accommodate Technical Changes.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: 4 ayes, o noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by Friends of the Wildlife Refuge - An Update of Their Activities at
Alameda Point.
A power point presentation was made by Leora Feeney, Chair of FAWR, and Eli Saddler,
Conservation Director for Golden Gate Audubon, to update the Board and community on the
resources at the Alameda proposed Wildlife Refuge to ensure the resources are protected while
transfer negotiations continue. Eli Saddler thanked the Board for the opportunity to present the
update and encouraged them to do whatever possible to protect the resource. He expressed
concern about the current plans that have been proposed that are within the area that was
considered in the Biological Opinion. They want to continue to work cooperatively with the VA
to protect the resource and honor the veterans at the same time.
Member deHaan commented on how nice it is to look at the maturity of the site, referring to the
photos included in the presentation. He asked if the resources, the ponds and wildlife area, are
getting to a better state. Ms. Feeney replied that the ponds are wonderful, but that Alameda Point
and the breakwater is vulnerable. She discussed the increase in the Pelican numbers, and the use
of the willows by migratory birds, including a hawk, one winter. Ms. Feeney also mentioned
how far the recognition of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge stretches, explaining that two college
students chose the Refuge site for their graduate work, one from Los Angeles, and the other from",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,2,"Toronto, Canada. Also, the first magazine issued by the National Wildlife Refuge Association
included an segment on Alameda and asked the FAWR to be an affiliate of theirs.
Member deHaan asked how successful the mating pairs have been up to this point. Ms. Feeney
summarized the progress of the lease tern colony, explaining that Alameda has the sixth largest
colony in the world, but that we are isolated from the other colonies (most in Southern Ca).
Member Matarrese really enjoyed the pictures included in the presentation and appreciates the
fragility of the ecosystem of the site. He discussed another upcoming item on the Agenda, Site
1, an uncharacterized waste pit which is adjacent to the Wildlife Refuge, and the importance of
addressing the clean-up issues and how it relates to the water-borne life of the refuge. Mr.
Saddler added that once construction begins at Alameda Point, it would inevitably impact how
the clean-up is managed.
Vice Chair Tam asked if they have seen some of the latest conceptual plans from the VA. Mr.
Saddler said that he and Ms. Feeney met with the VA and were able to see three versions of
proposed plans. They were concerned that the new concepts proposes the area between the
proposed Golf course and the refuge site as a buffer zone, but also expressed their desire to stay
engaged with the VA and keep things in perspective as to what's best for Alameda, what's best
for the Veterans and what's best for the wildlife. Member Matarrese clarified that the VA is a
fed-to-fed transfer, and not the Alameda development.
Member deHaan recommended the Board receive periodic updates of the VA's proposals and
requested a briefing. Member Matarrese agreed and asked whether the updates can be obtained
officially. Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that there is no official proposal
available yet from the VA. Member Matarrese requested that when there is an official proposal,
he would like the Board to see it. The Board agreed.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - oral report
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, reported that the VA is
currently engaged in informal Section 7 consultations with the USF&W and have a potential site
plan, but there are no additional details beyond that.
Member deHaan asked what role the ARRA would have, since the property would be a fed-to-
fed transfer. Ms. Potter explained that it has been properly characterized as a fed-to-fed transfer,
and, as such, the VA would work directly with the Navy on the conveyance of the property. This
opportunity is one that the VA would be interested in exploring because the property would be
conveyed to them for free; different than the conveyance we're involved in for the remainder of
the property. ARRA and staff would be involved at an informal level, but because the
development is adjacent, we have interest in some issues like the submerged lands adjacent to
dry lands. Ms Potter stated that staff would continue to consult and work with the VA, the
USF&W, and the Navy, but key issues are hammered out at the federal level.
Member deHaan discussed his understanding that the USF&W made a claim to property, said
that they would be the governing body and provide financially, but they could not fulfill their
commitment and this is why the Navy is looking for a different avenue. Ms. Potter explained
that, in the USF&W's own words, ""the status of refuge is at an impasse""; that they are unable to
reconcile their issues with the Navy regarding a fed-to-fed transfer, and that their key concern is
future liability regarding environmental cleanup. They have not perfected the transfer
arrangement, so the Navy has been in discussions with the VA in lieu of USF&W. Because
there are endangered species on the property, Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,3,"consultation to make sure that whatever the VA does, they cannot harm the endangered species.
Ms. Potter clarified that the USF&W are not pursuing ownership of the property at this time and
that if the Navy goes forward with the property transfer to the VA, the Navy will retain clean-up
obligations for the property.
Vice Chair Tam questioned what SunCal's follow-up with the VA has been to this point
regarding the site, if their dialogue with the VA includes potential alternative sites. Ms Potter
responded that SunCal has had one additional follow-up meeting with the VA and that SunCal is
aware of their need ultimately, and that this issue is a key item on SunCal's Project Master
Schedule.
It is noted that Chair Johnson arrived at this point in the discussion (7:52 p.m.).
Ms. Potter gave her update on SunCal, including that the first two community meetings have
been scheduled, the first on 10/24 at Mastick Senior Center. The agenda for this meeting
includes introduction of SunCal and their partners to the community, framing the project and
their approach to the project, and site constraints. A second meeting is tentatively scheduled on
12/12 at the O'club to solicit feedback from community regarding the range of development
scenarios, and their key focus to continue surveying property and preparing to do sampling - the
technical work to support the land-planning effort.
Member Matarrese asked if we're on track with zoning issues. Ms. Potter explained that she has
prepared an off-agenda report discussing that the status of the public trust designation protects us
more than locking in zoning, and recommends that staff not do anything ahead of the entitlement
process. FM requested that this item be agendized.
Chair Johnson asked if the mortgage crisis is a risk to SunCal. Ms. Potter said that SunCal has
reassured they are not impacted by that crisis. Chair Johnson wants to be kept updated of
SunCal's activities regarding the project.
This report was for information only. No motion or action was required.
3-C. Approve and Submit Comment Letter on the Draft Record of Decision for Installation
Restoration Site 1 (1943-1956 Disposal Area).
Ms. Potter summarized a letter sent to the EPA requesting additional investigative work be done
at IR Site 1. She explained that trenching activities are concluded at the site and key concerns
identified: no intact drums were found, but the waste had low-level radioactivity. The cost of
digging up and hauling off the landfill is very expensive so staff's recommendation is to take the
Navy's approach outlined in their draft ROD to cap the landfill.
Member Matarrese had deep concerns about the radioactive and hazardous waste and
groundwater migration of the contaminants out of the landfill. Dr. Peter Russell addressed the
concerns and explained that the landfill was closed and no waste put in for 50 years, with a good
deal of monitoring and investigation, it appears not to be any migration of contents. Dr. Russell
further explained that 11 trenches were dug and there were no drums or containers whatsoever,
except for one broken which was consistent with the Navy's supposition that what drums were
placed in there were crushed. It is unlikely that there are many, if any, drums. Another issue
was the volume of waste - the Navy over-estimated by a factor of two or three, so accordingly,
they inflated the cost by two or three. Their feasibility study did not consider radioactivity in
landfill, and now that there is, we do not have an argument that the cost for the removal is at the
Navy's estimate.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-10-03,4,"Member Matarrese motioned to send a letter that is policy in nature requesting that the
Navy excavate and remove the contents of the radioactive contaminated landfill, and
dispense with institutional controls on surrounding properties that are deemed to be
cleaned.
The motion was seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, o noes, and 0 abstentions.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
The RAB met regularly and again on Sept. 28th to discuss six alternatives for the draft feasibility
study for IR Site 32. Their recommendation endorses a chemical oxidation and institutional
controls for that site to alleviate groundwater contaminations.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese was contacted by a member of boating industry regarding development in
Jack London Square that will displace their annual boat show in 2009. The representatives are
interested in another venue for the boat show and are looking at Alameda Point. Member
Matarrese expressed that this would be a great thing to pursue a boat show of that magnitude,
and that it would be an economic boom for our city. He requested a report when/if this can be
done.
Executive Director, Debra Kurita, said that ARRA staff has been in discussions with the
representatives of the boat show and will update the Board with information.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Have Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-10-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 3, 2007.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of October 16, 2007.
2-C. Approve a Five-Year Sublease with the Alameda Naval Air Museum (ANAM) at Alameda
Point.
2-D. Approve a Ground Lease at No Cost for Kids Chalk Art Project.
2-E. Approve General Release and Compromise Agreement with The Reuse People of America,
Inc.
Member deHaan pulled Item 2-B. (Oct. 16 Minutes) for discussion. The balance of the
Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member
Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 noes, o abstentions.
Item 2-B: Member deHaan pulled this item because he wanted to clarify the action that occurred
at the Special Meeting of Oct. 16th. He specifically addressed the item discussed at this meeting,
Item 3-A. Establish an Alameda Point Advisory Task Force. The discussion that he understood
was that one member from each of the boards and commissions plus the Housing Commission
would be selected and that the individuals would report back to their commissions and boards.
At the recommendation of the Executive Director, Debra Kurita, Member Gilmore suggested we
hold approval of Item 2-B until Item 3-C (AP Advisory Task Force: Clarification of Roles and
Responsibilities) is discussed. Member deHaan said since he placed Item 3-C on the agenda, he
would pull it if Item 2-B is clarified.
Chair Johnson stated that 3-C should not be pulled and should be discussed because more
direction needs to be provided. Member Matarrese agreed with member deHaan to correct the
minutes first, and agreed with Chair Johnson to keep Item 3-C on the agenda for discussion.
Deputy Executive Director, David Brandt, further clarified that in addition to the Housing
Commission member, that there would be a representative from the Climate Protection Task
Force as well. All Board members agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,2,"Chair Johnson recommended keeping Item 3-C on the agenda, affirmed by staff that it would be
helpful for further discussion.
Vice Chair Tam requested a correction of the 10/16 minutes to reflect that it was Member
Matarrese who seconded the motion, and not her.
Member Gilmore motioned for approval of Item 2-B with the following corrections: to
include full complement of the Boards and Commissions with one member representing his
or her Board/Commission's position and reporting back to that board or commission, and
this includes the Climate Protection Task Force and Housing Commission representatives;
and to reflect that Member Matarrese seconded the motion, and not Vice Chair Tam. The
motion was seconded by Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
There were two speakers on Item 2-D (Kids Chalk Art Project), Mark Wagner, who thanked the
Board for waiving the fee for the use of Alameda Point for the project; and Trish Spencer,
President of the Alameda PTA Council, who gave a brief explanation of the project, which
spotlights art and brings art to the students and families of Alameda schools. They plan to draw
the largest chalk project in the world.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Proclamation for Ken Hansen, Community Co-Chair of the FISCA RAB.
Chair Johnson proclaimed Nov. 7, 2007 as Ken Hansen Day in the City of Alameda, and
presented the Proclamation to Mr. Hansen. Mr. Jim Sweeney also presented Mr. Hansen with a
Letter of Appreciation from the US Navy, signed by Laura Duchnak, Director of the BRAC
Program Office. Mr. Mike Quillen of ERM presented a letter of appreciation and recognition to
the ARRA Board to honor Mr. Hansen for his contribution and achievements to the ARRA and
the City of Alameda.
3-B. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief project update:
SunCal held its first community meeting on October 24th. There were over 200 members of the
community in attendance. SunCal introduced their team and gave a presentation which focused
on various constraints and work they have done so far. There were various technical consultants
on hand, and following the formal remarks, there was opportunity for the community to talk on a
one-on-one basis with the consultants. SunCal is preparing for a briefing with the Navy on 11/15
regarding their progress to date. The next meeting is scheduled on 12/13 at the O'Club at 6:30
p.m.
At the 10/16 Special ARRA meeting, there was a request that staff prepare a stakeholder process
for involving the folks that have special interest in Alameda Point. An off-agenda regarding this
item was distributed end of last week.
Chair Johnson asked if we are meeting the benchmarks in the process and keeping the timeline.
Ms Potter replied that so far, yes, and that SunCal has two mandatory milestones on the near
horizon, the first is March '08 when they have to submit a development concept, along with
infrastructure plan and business plan; and the next milestone is May '08 where they are required
to submit their draft master plan application.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,3,"from the Planning Dept.
Andrew Thomas, Planning Services Manager, wanted clarification on the task force member role
to represent their board or commission.
Member Matarrese discussed that the memo distributed by Andrew Thomas regarding the roles
and responsibilities accurately captured the intent and purpose - which was to increase the
familiarity with all the boards and commissions of the plan when it's finished, so they are not
seeing it for the first time. The task force is responsible for two things: 1) report back, and 2)
advise SunCal on positions their boards and commissions have taken. It is a very clean and
efficient way of getting to the point of having the boards and commissions versed in the plan as it
is presented to them.
Vice Chair Tam expressed her concerns about the members of the task force being asked to
refrain from speaking at the Oct. 24th meeting until their roles and responsibilities were clarified.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-11-07,4,"She explained that it is not her view that we should deprive the advisory boardmembers of their
constitutional right to speak out or constrain them from sharing their views and experience. We
chose these people because of their expertise and their broad experience in Alameda and outside
- and that these boards and commissions have chosen them to help lead the discussion. It's
appropriate for them, once they're on the advisory task force, to interact productively with
SunCal to ask questions, and not simply be a human tape recorder.
Member Matarrese stated that his explanation of the roles of the task force members does not
preclude them from asking questions. Member deHaan added that the liaison to SunCal should
be staff, and not the task force member.
Andrew Thomas clarified that the advisory task force is an ad-hoc group, not a separate formal
commission. The task force meetings are the public workshop meetings - everything is publicly
noticed, there are no plans to hold ""task force"" meetings separate from the workshops.
Speaker, Bill Smith, spoke about various topics.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the last RAB meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
none.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan requested further discussion on the Coast Guard Housing Surplus process be
placed on the next Regular ARRA agenda.
Member Matarrese also requested a report on all the fields at Coast Guard Housing. Deputy
Executive Director, David Brandt, stated that an off-agenda is in preparation regarding this issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:29 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
James Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-11-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
The meeting convened at 7:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 7, 2007.
Member Gilmore clarified that the following correction should be made in the minutes
regarding Item 3-C. Alameda Point Advisory Task Force: that the Board and Commission
representatives would not only convey their Board or Commission's position to SunCal at
the public meetings, but also, they could speak for themselves if they made it clear that they
were speaking for themselves and not on behalf of their Board or Commission. Member
Matarrese motioned for approval of the Consent Calendar with the clarification made by
Member Gilmore, seconded by member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 noes, 0 abstentions.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Presentation by the Veterans Affairs on the VA Project Development Plans at
Alameda Point.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Claude
Hutchison, Director of Asset Enterprise Management, and Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset Manager,
of the VA who made a powerpoint presentation.
Mr. Hutchison gave a summary profile of the Dept. of Veterans Affairs. The VA is the second
largest agency within the Federal system, second only to the Department of Defense (DOD).
They are essentially the alumni association for the DOD and serve the needs and requirements of
24 million living Americans who served our country. They have an annual budget projected to
be $84 billion. There are three major areas of responsibilities and activities: 1) Veterans Health
Administration - to serve the medical needs and requirements of those enrolled in the VA
system. Currently 8 million enrollees, with 155 acute care hospitals around the country and 900
outpatient clinics, 2) Veterans Benefit Administration - financial services ranging from real
estate loans to insurance and educational requirements, and 3) National Cemetery Administration
- runs 125 national shrines as final internment for Veterans.
Their hope is to place a combination of all three at Alameda Point - a significant, multi-purpose
outpatient clinic, offices for the Veterans Benefit Administration, and an above-ground
columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,2,"The entire land mass that the VA hopes to have transferred to them by the Navy is approximately
597 acres. They envision developing about 113 acres concentrated in the north east area of the
property. Mr. Hutchison further explained that the VA is still in negotiations with the USF&W
because of the Lease Tern and California Brown Pelican whose habitat is within the area they
hope to control.
Mr. Jaynes concluded the presentation with an overview of the property area, stating that
Alameda Point is strategically located to serve the Veterans of the greater Bay Area, and in
addition, it is ideally and centrally located to serve the Veterans of northern Alameda County.
He indicated on the map which area was the federal-to-federal parcel at the far west end of
Alameda Point. It primarily consists of what was the airfield and landfill for NAS. The parcel
does not include the Northwest Territories, which is still going to the City of Alameda. It also
does not include any submerged lands. The 579-acre parcel runs from the west side of hangar
row all the way down to the bay, and follows the perimeter shoreline all the way around the tip.
When it gets to the Northwest Territories, it comes back down to hangar row.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's site development plan which they have been working on for 18
months. They plan to only develop 113 acres, and the remaining 466 acres will be left
undeveloped. The VA's planned development is a circumference of about 1900 feet from the
Lease Tern colony, based on the closest structure on hangar row, to assure the protection of the
Lease Tern and the Brown Pelican and so the VA and these endangered species can co-exist on
the site.
Their plans include an outpatient clinic on the far east end which would replace the two facilities
currently in Oakland. The clinic will be approximately 80-90,000 sq. ft. and be a full-service
ambulatory care clinic which will not have any beds. The VA would like to develop an above-
ground cemetery on the 50+ acres on the far west end of the parcel. There are approximately
390,000 Veterans in the greater Bay Area that would use the cemetery services, and for the
clinic, they envision that it would serve approximately 7,000 of the 40,000 northern Alameda
County Veterans. Also included in the clinic would be a small clinic that is run by the Air Force
(David Grant Medical Center) that would treat active duty and active duty dependents in the Bay
Area. The third development plan includes land reserved for ""enhanced use"", a public-private
partnership where a developer comes in and builds a facility on under-utilized VA land. The VA
was envisioning as their enhanced use partner a civilian in-patient hospital, which they believe is
a compatible need with their outpatient clinic.
Chair Johnson asked how many in-patient hospital beds the VA would anticipate be used by
Veterans. Mr. Jaynes replied that approximately 10 - 20 would be used for Veterans. Member
Matarrese mentioned that there is already a hospital here in Alameda that can be partnered with
the VA. Mr. Jaynes explained that the plans for the civilian hospital are still conceptual. The
enhanced use plans also include two structures for medical office buildings, which would house
civilian doctors and administration. Also included is a small nature center which the VA would
build to house fish and wildlife services and employees on the site to work with the Lease Terns,
as well as EBRPD rangers if an agreement can be worked out with them. The VA would also
build a bay trail on the property, limited to the far west side of the parcel in order to protect the
endangered species.
Mr. Jaynes presented the VA's timeline for development. They have been in consultation with
USF&W for almost two years, and are currently in negotiations with the Navy to develop an
MOU which will lay out the transfer terms. It is the VA and Navy's plan that the final transfer,
including the transfer documents, will be complete by Fall of 2008. In addition, the VA is
currently conducting a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental assessment
for transfer, and a biological assessment. They have plans to do a NEPA environmental impact
study which is funded and ready to go.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,3,"Mr. Jaynes explained the VA's two major construction projects, one for the clinic, one for the
cemetery. Both projects are congressionally authorized and appropriated, if approved for the
budget, design will begin on the clinic in 2010, with construction completed by spring/summer
2012. The columbarium is on the same timeline, but could be phased and opened sooner. The
enhanced use lease is in the concept application process and will go to the Secretary of the VA in
the spring, and if approved, the enhanced use process will begin in late spring and work toward
having a partner and open in 2012.
Member Tam thanked Mr. Jaynes and Mr. Hutchison for the presentation and had some
questions: 1) on the discussions the VA has had with the Navy regarding environmental clean-up
costs, 2) has there been progress in the VA's coordination with SunCal, and 3) the VA's role and
relationship with the Alameda Healthcare District.
Mr. Hutchison explained that the VA has had ongoing dialogue with the Alameda District
hospital and will be meeting with the new CEO tomorrow morning (Dec. 6) to continue that
dialogue and they are very interested in maintaining that relationship with the Alameda
Healthcare District. He further explained that the VA has issued an RFP for outpatient services,
and that the Alameda Healthcare District has responded. A final determination has not yet been
made.
As a response to Member Tam's first question about the clean-up costs, Mr. Hutchison discussed
that the Navy is responsible for clean-up. The VA's MOU with the Navy will set forth the terms
and conditions that outline the requirements of the Navy to bring it up to appropriate commercial
standards. The VA does not want to take on liability for contamination over which they had no
control. The inter-agency transfer will set forth clearly the Navy's requirements with no dispute
between the VA and the Navy as to those requirements. He emphasized that the VA has a
significant due diligence process.
Member Tam mentioned that since the VA is the alumni association to the Navy, that they may
have a stronger tie to them than the ARRA does. Mr. Hutchison explained that the Navy is well
aware of their obligation and is prepared to live up to it.
Mr. Jaynes discussed the coordination efforts with SunCal, stating that most of their
communication with SunCal since their last meeting with them has been through Debbie Potter.
He said that he has been playing phone-tag with the project manager for SunCal, Pat Keliher, but
will continue to strive to communicate with them to make sure their plans are in coordination
with the ARRA's. Mr. Hutchison thanked Member Tam for being the catalyst to bringing
SunCal and the VA together in a joint cooperation going forward.
Chair Johnson wanted to clarify whether residential units were still part of the VA's development
plan. Mr. Hutchison confirmed that residential units were never part of their plan. Member
deHaan discussed his concerns about the budget appropriations and the VA's cost for their
development plans. Mr. Hutchison stated that the budget approval cycle was FY '10 and the
dollar amount for the hospital is in the $50M range, and considerably less for the columbarium.
They are confident that their proposal will be well received by congress and the Dept. of
Veteran's Affairs. Member deHaan also asked about the status of their coordination efforts with
SunCal. Mr. Hutchison reaffirmed what Mr. Jaynes had said about their intent to maintain
dialogue with SunCal.
Chair Johnson called the speakers, first Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics, including the
Lease Terns and transportation issues. The next speaker, Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the
Alameda County Veterans Affairs Commission, spoke in support of the VA's plan to develop the
outpatient clinic at Alameda Point. He discussed the status quo of Veterans having to travel to
Martinez, Travis AFB, and Mare Island for healthcare.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,4,"Another speaker, Leora Feeney, Boardmember of the Golden Gate Audubon Society and Friends
of the Alameda Wildlife (FAWR), stated her appreciation for the cordiality given by the VA
regarding their proposal. She stated that all of them support Veterans in a huge way, and also
support wildlife and open space and opportunities for our children to experience nature. Ms.
Feeney discussed her concerns on specific issues of the VA presentation, mainly the ""circle""
concept (1900 feet distance from the nearest hangar). She's concerned that any development that
places a barrier between the Lease Tern colony and the water would present a problem, as the
Lease Terns do not fly over buildings. They would not be able to get to the water to forage. Ms.
Feeney's other strong objection is the VA's unwillingness to accept the water around the refuge,
together with the land, including the island breakwater where the brown pelicans roost. If the VA
accepts the land and develops that northern portion of it, it seems reasonable, but there is a need
to protect the foraging waters of the Lease Terns and the island breakwater for those endangered
species. She emphasized the need for accountability to protect these things, and stated that if the
USF&W does not have it, nor the VA, she's concerned about who will accept the responsibility.
Chair Johnson asked the VA what their intention is with regard to Ms. Feeney's concerns about
the water. Mr. Hutchison stated that it is envisioned that the water area would go to the master
developer, SunCal, and that the VA has never coveted that water. Deputy Executive Director,
David Brandt, corrected Mr. Hutchison's statement by explaining that the area is Tidelands
property, so it would be the ARRA or the City that would hold title to the property, and not
SunCal.
The next speaker was Eli Saddler, Conservation Director for the Golden Gate Audubon Society.
He discussed further the concerns of Ms. Feeney, and agreed that they support the VA. He
would like them to go forward with their development plans, but just not at the Alameda Point
site. One of their primary concerns is that the VA's plan contradicts the existing biological
opinion that was developed when USF&W originally requested the property as a refuge. There
was a minimum acreage required for the California Lease Tern which was the entire area
sectioned off, not including the northern-most portion, which was going to the City and was to be
developed as a buffer zone. The VA's plans would be inside the buffer zone of the area that has
already been designated as the critical habitat for the species. They do not think that it is
biologically defensible to draw a circle of 1900 feet around the colony, it is unrealistic to think
that the birds will obey and stay in that circle. They use the whole area, including areas where
the VA has already planned to put their hospital. Mr. Saddler also further discussed his concern
about the water area, which was also included in the original biological opinion, which stated
that the area to the south was needed for foraging for both species. He emphasized their concern
about whether the VA's plan was biologically feasible without very serious mitigation that
would have to be done ahead of any construction, mitigation meaning having an alternative site
for the Lease Terns to go to, and there was no discussion of this mitigation. It is their
understanding that the USF&W would have some kind of requirement that would include
mitigation. The problem is, however, that there really is no other location for the Lease Terns to
go. The VA plans could potentially jeopardize Alameda's very significant Lease Tern colony.
Mr. Saddler also discussed his concerns about the VA's NEPA process and whether it is legally
defensible. The transfer of the parcel is for a purpose, and if there is a new biological opinion
that contradicts a pre-existing one, this places the VA's development plans on shaky ground,
legally.
Chair Johnson thanked all the speakers and Mr. Hutchison for coming in from Washington, DC
to make the VA's presentation. Member deHaan asked whether the VA looked at other
opportunities at Alameda Point. Mr. Hutchison clarified that their discussions have been with
the Navy, and that the Navy came to them, unable to agree to terms with the USF&W and was
going to dispose of the property, and asked whether the VA had an interest in taking it over.
Their relationship to the parcel is a direct result of the Navy soliciting their interest. Mr. Jaynes
added that the VA had looked at the older Coast Guard Housing property, but felt that it wasn't
large enough to satisfy the VA's needs for a medical clinic as well as a columbarium.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,5,"Member Matarrese expressed his appreciation for the presentation as it quelled various rumors
about the VA's interest in the property. It's good for the ARRA and for the public to hear a
presentation live from officials of the VA. Member Matarrese asked if they would take back
with them a couple considerations: 1) that he does not share their optimism regarding the Navy's
commitment to do clean-up. He asked that they have the same demands as the ARRA does
regarding clean-up, and to accept the land clean, especially if it would be the final resting place
for our Veterans, and 2) explore to the maximum the opportunity to work with the Alameda
Healthcare District. A competing private hospital would be to the detriment of the hospital that
Alameda taxpayers support.
Member deHaan requested that the Alameda Healthcare District make a presentation to the
ARRA regarding their interest in the VA project. Chair Johnson stated that they will invite the
Alameda Healthcare District to make a presentation to the ARRA when they are ready to do so.
3-B. Update on the Former Coast Guard Housing Property.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the North Housing parcel, specifically on the temporary license
agreement/lease for estuary park, the exploration of a possible short-term leasing program, and
the screening process underway for the homeless accommodation and public benefit conveyance.
Staff has been working with the Navy on the short-term lease for estuary park, some sticking
points involve environmental remediation, but a short term lease agreement is planned to be
brought back to the ARRA in January '08. Staff determined that it was not feasible to have a
short-term leasing program for the surplus units. Regarding the screening process, on Nov. 5,
the Navy published their notice of surplus property in the Federal register, which triggered the
ARRA's obligation to notify the public that the property is available for screening and we are
currently in the middle of the process. There is a public information workshop scheduled for
tomorrow (Dec. 6) to brief interested parties on the screening process, and to take them on a tour
of the property. Notices of Interest (NOI) for both the homeless accommodation and the public
benefit conveyance will be due to the City on February 29, 2008. Those notices will be
evaluated working with HUD and the Navy, and ultimately we will go through a public process
of amending the Community Reuse Plan to reflect the accommodations and public benefit
conveyances that may result from this process.
3-C. Alameda Point Project Update - Oral Report.
Debbie Potter gave an update on the Alameda Point project. A meeting with the Navy originally
scheduled to take place in November was rescheduled to December 12th The next SunCal
community meeting is scheduled on December 13th at the O'Club at 6:30 p.m, with another
public meeting scheduled on January 30, 2008.
There was one speaker, Bill Smith.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese will attend the meeting tomorrow (12/6) and will have a report in January.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2007-12-05,6,"6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:49 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2007-12-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:33 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 5, 2007.
2-B. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Agreement with Russell Resources for
Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point for 12 Months in an Amount not to
exceed $117,500.
2-C. Approve Sublease for American Bus Repair, LLC at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update -- Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Schedule Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a quick update of
Alameda Point activities. On 12/12, SunCal met with the Navy to discuss their due diligence and
progress on the project. On 12/13, SunCal conducted their second community meeting with over
200 community residents and business people in attendance. The community members
participated in small workgroups and identified pros and cons of two broadly defined concepts
for Alameda Point. SunCal will take the information and feedback from this meeting to put to
use for the next community meeting. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Project
Manager for the Alameda Point Project, to give the first quarterly update of the Project Master
Schedule.
Mr. Keliher summarized past public meetings, explaining that the public would like more
specific feedback on multiple planning concepts. SunCal has aggregated most of the information
and feedback and will present this to staff. To update the master schedule -- originally, SunCal's
pretense was that they would move forward with the Preliminary Development Concept (PDC),
but over the course of the last few months, due to constraints, the PDC is not feasible. SunCal
has communicated this to the Navy, to the public, and to staff, and the Project Master Schedule
has been updated. Most of schedule triggers project description, which is still in process and will
take several more months, but does not affect the two-year ENA period. Mr. Keliher discussed
that the City hired an independent peer review team to evaluate SunCal's results and this peer",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-01-02,2,"review will continue over the next 12-18 months. The conclusion of the peer review thus far is
that there are issues for which SunCal will discuss the mitigation techniques. SunCal has met
with multiple federal agencies, and their meeting with the Navy was to introduce them to the
concept that the PDC didn't work, and, as the existing term sheet is predicated on the PDC,
SunCal will come back to the Navy in Jan-Feb with an outline on their strategy. Mr. Keliher
explained that the Alameda Point project is very complex, but nothing that is insurmountable.
Member deHaan expressed concern with economics of the project and what issues SunCal was
anticipating will be covered at the next public meeting. Mr. Keliher stated that it is SunCal's job
to present more specifics on each of the different planning concepts, i.e., Measure A, non-
measure A, or a hybrid of these two, etc.
Member deHaan stated that the loose ends and driving force was the transportation issue. Mr.
Keliher agreed that the transportation issue was a trigger and that it would take several years and
a
lot of different agencies involved to tie up this loose end. Member deHaan commented that the
public meetings were well-received.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese attended the 12/6/07 meeting and the main agenda item was a summary
handout of 2007 activities and a look-forward to 2008 with remediation at Alameda Point. He
provided the handout, ""Environmental Progress at Alameda Point"" and requested that it be
provided to ARRA members and posted on the City's website. He requested that the map
identifying the sites be included with the handout.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speaker slips.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
none.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:43 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-01-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-02-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 6, 2008- 7:01 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR:
Property:
Alameda Naval Air Station
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA was briefed and discussed price and terms. The Board provided instruction
to staff. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:35
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 6, 2008",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-02-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-03-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 5, 2008- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:14 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Estuary Park
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and Navy
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The Navy's offer of a license, rather than a lease, and the ability of the Navy to terminate
the lecense on short notice was discussed. The City desired a lease, which would five the
City the right to use the premises for a longer period of time and would justify the
investment of City money in the park. The City will not pursue an agreement any more, at
this time.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties: ARRA and SCC Alameda Point LLC
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
Staff provided an update on negotiations regarding Alameda Point. No action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 6:48
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Iruna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
March 5, 2008",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-03-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Absent: Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve Sublease for Delphi Productions at Alameda Point.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
o
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of Quarterly Update of Project Master
Scheduled Prepared by SCC Alameda Point LLC.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update as
required in the ENA project master schedule. In March, ARRA voted to provide a six month
extension to the mandatory milestones in the ENA, and added additional requirements of a
consultant costs account. She informed that Suncal has deposited the required funds pursuant to
the amended ENA and are moving forward to achieve the first milestone, the Development
Concept, in September. The second activity concluded Monday evening, the May 5th
Community Meeting on Transit Oriented Alternatives, an MTC-funded stationery master plan.
The meeting included discussions on principles and land use policies that would encourage
transit-supportive development at Alameda Point and ways the master developer could evaluate
those principles.
Member deHaan directed questions to Mr. Pat Keliher, SunCal's project manager for Alameda
Point. Member deHaan asked whether staff and SunCal have a mechanism to recognize and
track SunCal's progress, because the project is a monumental task. Mr. Keliher explained that
the build-up is to September of the Development Concept. SunCal meets weekly with staff and
provide monthly updates at the ARRA meetings, and there's an upcoming community meeting
planned. Debbie Potter further explained that staff and SunCal recognize that when ARRA
approved the six month extension, there was a requirement, in addition to the quarterly deposit,
to spend $117,000/month for consultant services. Staff is able to monitor what activities SunCal
is doing with their consultants to move the planning effort forward. David Brandt, Deputy
Executive Director, stated that given the compressed schedule, staff is not anticipating any
interim products other than meeting materials, no sub plans, etc. Member deHaan discussed his",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,2,"understanding of using monetary expenditure as a baseline, but was concerned that spending
money doesn't necessarily mean progress. He would like a break-down in more incremental,
more defined product. Mr. Keliher acknowledged Member deHaan's concerns, and offered to
choose core topics that ARRA would like to have reports on, and speak about substantive issues
at the meetings. Chair Johnson discussed that the milestones are already in place and it's not
necessary to add extra ""interim' milestones. Member deHaan explained that all he's requesting
is for SunCal to stick with timeline, report on current activities, and provide a progress report on
key issues and accomplishments. Member Gilmore requested a brief description, and to provide
context for what's going on, rather than just the dry milestones that are shown on the chart.
Member Matarrese agreed and said it is worthwhile to list whether we're behind, or on, schedule;
and to show progress on something that is significant as a milestone so that the public can
anticipate what's going to happen. It is also useful to check things off. Member deHaan
expressed that he just doesn't want to see SunCal in the same position they were when they had
to request an extension, as September is approaching quickly. Member Gilmore requested no
powerpoints, explaining that time spent making the presentation should not take away from time
spent working on the project. Mr. Keliher agreed.
There was one public speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke on various topics, including public transit.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the meeting and did not have a report.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan provided feedback and expressed his concerns about the May 5th community
meeting regarding Transit Oriented Alternatives. He was concerned that the poor turnout was
due to lack of publicity about the meeting, that notice of the meeting was not posted on the main
bulletin board at City Hall, and there was no newspaper release, except for a 1/8 page
advertisement. He discussed that last year's meeting on the same topic, held at Mastick Senior
Center, had strong community input, lots of interest, lots of dialogue and the community was
engaged. It was well-publicized and got the community talking about the issue. Debbie Potter
explained that the meeting was noticed on the Alameda Point website, and an email blast to all
previous interested-party lists was sent, as well as an email blast to SunCal's list. There was also
a 1/4 page advertisement which ran three times in the newspaper. She acknowledged that the
notice was not posted on the bulletin board; but that the methods of publicity for this meeting
were actually the same, if not more, than what has been done in the past, with the addition of
SunCal's email list, and has been an effective way of notifying people who have interest.
Member deHaan expressed the importance of public relations and requested he receive the
handouts prior to the meetings.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-05-07,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Aira Ridden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-05-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 7, 2008.
2-B. Approve the First Amendment to the Lease Agreement for St. George Spirits at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Approve a Second Amendment to the Agreement with Marc Associates to Extend the Term
for Seven Months and Add $45,000 for a Total Budget of $120,000 for Provision of
Intergovernmental Relations Services.
Vice Chair Tam abstained from Item 2-A (May 7 Minutes) because she was absent from
that meeting. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1.
The balance of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an update focusing
on legislation approved by the House, and pending in the Senate, regarding the conveyance of
Alameda Point. Staff worked with the Navy to pursue this legislation because they felt it was
necessary to streamline the conveyance of the property. Since 1993, there have been lots of
barriers and the strategy was to look at an approach that would be as efficient as possible in
conveying the property. The legislation outlines three possible options: 1) take the June 2006
negotiated draft term sheet with the Navy and provide a timeframe for allowing SunCal to work
with the Navy and ARRA on a Term Sheet that works for them to convey the property; 2)
provide a land price formula that SunCal could elect to pursue if they were interested in that land
price formula or felt that they couldn't work out a Term Sheet with the Navy on conveyance
terms, and; 3) in the event the master developer withdrew, allow the ARRA to work with the
Navy to auction the property. Special legislation is necessary due to public trusts lands which
preclude the Navy to auction the property on its own. If the bill passes, it will go into effect on
October 1st.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,2,"Member Matarrese requested that staff provide more detailed information under 'budget
consideration /fiscal impact', i.e., how much did we spend, did we exceed budget, etc. Ms.
Potter explained that all the activities undertaken by staff and consultants to prepare the
legislation is an eligible reimbursement activity pursuant to the ENA with SunCal, that all costs
are borne by SunCal. Member Matarrese would like to see these details in the staff report. He
also asked about the activities SunCal is currently undertaking. Ms. Potter discussed that SunCal
is
particularly focused on examining sea level rise on Alameda Landing and Alameda Point, fill
and geotechnical grading, updating the infrastructure numbers and hoping to have an updated
proforma in 2-4 weeks that reflect those numbers. SunCal is also working on scheduling
community meetings at the end of July or beginning of August, and on Sept. 19, their
Development Concept is due.
Member deHaan was hoping for more detail or progress report on each of the myriad activities
that SunCal is doing. Ms. Potter explained that staff heard the desire expressed by the Board last
month for a detailed progress report. She stated that SunCal will be back next month with a
detailed update the Board is looking for. Member deHaan clarified the purpose of the options of
the legislation and Ms. Potter affirmed his clarification.
Vice Chair Tam asked for clarification on the consent calendar item just approved regarding
increasing Marc Associates' budget. Ms. Potter confirmed that Marc Associates is the firm that
worked with staff and the Navy on this legislation, and that their entire effort is covered under
the contract amount of $120,000. In an effort to understand our coalition partners and how we
are stacked in the bill, Vice Chair Tam commented that the Alameda Point legislation Section
2851 is a small piece. Ms. Potter explained that the entire bill is approximately 1000 pages long
and Alameda Point is sandwiched between a number of other bases (all branches, not just the
Navy - including Army, Air Force, etc.) across the country that also have special legislation.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director further explained that, in Washington DC, there are
two acts: the Annual Defense Authorization Bill and the Annual Appropriations Bill, and there
cannot be an Appropriation for any activity without first having Authorization. He stated that
Marc Associates also works with the City and County of San Francisco and the League of Cities.
Chair Johnson commented on how effective Marc Associates has been on this defense
legislation.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A.
Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese reported that there was no RAB meeting between the last ARRA meeting and
this one. He did attend a walkthru of some of the sites on Saturday and has photos to share.
Member deHaan also attended the tour, which he said was presented as an overview on the
remediation of the sites, but the tour was sidetracked and the focus was more on the fish and
wildlife activities.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7. ADJOURNMENT",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-06-04,3,"Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-06-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 12:44 a.m. (7/2/08) with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
(Chair Johnson was absent at the time of roll call, returned at approximately 12:50 a.m.,
during Item 3-A)
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 4, 2008.
2-B. Approve a Sublease for Stafford Stafford Sent Packing at Alameda Point.
2-C. Accept a $128,000 Grant from the Federal Office of Economic Adjustment in Support of
the North Housing Parcel Screening Process and Authorize the Executive Director to
Execute Related Documents.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 4, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief update on
Alameda Point activities. She stated that the highlight was the meeting that SunCal and ARRA
staff had with Navy staff in San Diego on June 5th. Discussions included talking to Navy staff
about beginning a process to kick off renegotiation of the term sheet, and the Navy has embraced
a schedule that will get us to a term sheet by July 2009. SunCal has been working over past 6-8
weeks on land use and infrastructure assumptions, and the costs associated with the infrastructure
proposals. Staff has also been working on the Federal legislation which was the focus of the
update at the last meeting. Not much has changed, legislation was passed by the House in May,
and is now awaiting activity in Senate. The Senate has not yet addressed the authorization bills,
but we expect that it will happen in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher,
SunCal's project manager on the Alameda Point project, to answer questions from the Board.
Member deHaan asked whether the language revisions on the legislation had been ironed out.
Ms. Potter explained that the revisions were made reflective of the direction from the ARRA and
that the Navy and the VA are currently reviewing the proposed changes.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,2,"Member Matarrese requested, for the public, that Ms. Potter comment and describe the letter the
Navy sent to the ARRA in response to the ARRA's request for funds to provide services to
Alameda Point. Ms. Potter explained that the Navy sent the ARRA a response that there is a 50
year Lease in Furtherance of Conveyance (LIFOC) Agreement that allows us to lease the
property, collect revenue, and use the lease revenues for maintenance of the property. The Navy
further stated that they did not anticipate revisiting the terms of the LIFOC for maintenance
activities.
Member Tam asked if the Navy is implying we increase our lease rates in order to generate the
necessary funds we were requesting. Ms. Potter replied that that was the conclusion the Navy
has eluded to, but that they were not offering to step in, nor did they offer any options to
augmenting anything.
Member deHaan expressed his concern and dissatisfaction with the Navy's response - given that
the property is in a state of deterioration and does not make economic sense - and requested
further discussion. Chair Johnson agreed and requested the item be agendized and brought back
for discussion at the next ARRA meeting.
Pat Keliher gave a brief update on the high level topics, including infrastructure, baseline
assumptions, and mitigation on some of the issues. He stated SunCal's goal for their consultants
and City Staff to agree on baseline assumptions, which affect the entire land plan. He's
optimistic that progress is being made to achieve that goal. The number one issue that SunCal
and City staff has agreed on was what to assume for global warming, sea level rise and the
design parameter, which is 18 inches - a reasonable baseline to set design standards. All of the
land plan will be based on that assumption. Another important issue is the Floodplain and
mitigation. SunCal is evaluating the pros and cons of three main options: 1) elevate everything,
2) levy systems, or 3) a combination of the both. Mr. Keliher further discussed that their
Environmental consultants are working with the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to agree upon what these agencies will
allow SunCal to build - housing? housing over retail? What are the requirements? SunCal is
slowly getting answers from the agencies. Another high level topic is the Sports Complex -
Nick Kosla of SunCal has been working with Dale Lillard, Recreation and Parks Director, to
identify and interview three master planners for the Sports Complex. They are hoping, that in
the next week or two, to select a master planner and begin the public process. The next
community meeting is scheduled on August 7th, which will include a summary of the last
meeting and new information to date, as well as information on the Sports Complex. There is
also a plan to schedule the next meeting with the Navy at the end of July to discuss the Business
Model and Plan.
Mr. Keliher informed the Board that SunCal has conducted a survey on most of the existing
historic buildings to determine if their floor is above floodplain. Some hangars are still in the
floodplain, but most are out, including City Hall West. The survey gave SunCal an important and
good datapoint which is useful in evaluating their adaptive reuse formula.
Mr. Keliher concluded by informing the Board that SunCal has a new capital partner, which they
will bring back to the Board in August.
There was one speaker on this item, Bill Smith, who discussed several topics, including the 18-
inch baseline.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-07-01,3,"4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
Member Matarrese did not have a report, as the next RAB meeting in on Thursday, July 3rd
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Chair Johnson reported that she attended the Spring Meeting for U.S. Conference with Mayors,
and that it was very good. Member Tam asked if Chair Johnson had the opportunity to meet
Senator Obama. Chair Johnson said she heard and saw Senator Obama speak, but did not meet
him. She did, however, get Bill Clinton's autograph.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:00 a.m. (7/2/08) by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Arma Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-07-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:27 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the City Council, ARRA, and CIC of
August 19, 2008.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with St. Francis Electric for
Pier 2 Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a contract not to exceed $1,344,744.
Leslie Little, Development Services Director, gave an overview of the item and discussed the
Spring 2006 sublease of MARAD approved by the ARRA for 20 years for use of the piers at
Alameda Point. Pier 2 is an older, unreliable facility, and doesn't comply with current standards.
To upgrade to code, the underground transformers would need to be relocated above ground to
meet Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) requirements. In January 2007, the ARRA approved
design work for the electrical upgrade for Pier 2 improvements and the project was bid. A bid
was received for $1.7M for the project. The Board then directed staff to revise the project to
reduce the total cost. Staff and MARAD worked closely with AP&T to revise the technical
requirements to just upgrade the existing systems, which reduced the project cost significantly
for the next bid. Three bids were received, with St. Francis Electric with the lowest bid at
$1.29M. Staff is requesting approval to add a 5% contingency with add-on alternative for
concrete x-raying and independent testing for the Pier 2 Electrical upgrades, for a total cost not
to exceed $1,344,744.
Member Matarrese commented that the impact to the ARRA budget is that we are + $400,000,
and asked how much the ARRA owes to the City General Fund. Ms. Little replied that the
ARRA has two loan obligations, 1) ARRA debt obligation of $2.4M, and 2) the Alameda Point
Improvement Project (APIP) of $1.258M. Member Matarrese recommended it be considered
that the $400,000 be paid back to General Fund as part of a loan payment. Ms. Little explained
that the ARRA currently carries that as an expenditure, and it would go back to the General Fund
Reserve.
Staff and the Board discussed the ARRA lease revenues, and how they are not sufficient to cover
expenditures in totality. Member Gilmore asked whether there were any other large capital",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,2,"projects that were going out for bid on this year. Ms. Little replied that the last roof repair project
was finished, as well as the preliminary assessment of the pier conditions, and that work will be
scheduled to start the piling and pier replacements. The greatest issue is that there are old
systems at Alameda Point - if there were a water or sewer problem or other major activity, we
need cash on hand to resolve those issues.
Member Matarrese expressed his concern that we're funding infrastructure that doesn't belong to
us, the City doesn't own the property, it still belongs to Navy. We're adding value to what the
Navy is putting a high price tag on. He stated that he would much rather put that money toward
unfunded liabilities of General Fund services. Member Gilmore agreed, stating that, in theory,
should we have a major system malfunction, there are tenants that pay to cover these issues.
There should be a balance while we're in a holding position with the Navy.
Vice Chair Tam motioned for approval of the Contract with St. Francis Electric, the
motion was seconded by Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5,
Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3-B. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of the Draft Development Concept.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, introduced Pat Keliher and
Peter Calthorpe, Urban Designer, who presented a powerpoint presentation of the draft
development concept to the Board and public. The presentation can be viewed at
www.alamedapointcommunity.com. After the presentation, Chair Johnson opened the item to
the Boardmembers for discussion. Member Matarrese asked if both plans assume a $108M
payment to the Navy, to which Ms. Potter replied, ""yes.""
Member Gilmore asked Mr. Calthorpe for more specific information regarding his comment on
the importance of phasing the transportation enhancements so housing could keep pace with the
capacity in the tube, asking if it can work, and when we will know. Pat Keliher, SunCal's
Alameda Point Project Manager, explained that Fehr & Peers, their Transportation Consultant, is
doing a detailed study on the traffic improvements and what the triggers are for the
enhancements. Mr. Keliher further stated that there is $90M worth of traffic improvements up to
the 4000 unit threshold, and that Fehr & Peers plan to have a public meeting focused specifically
on the transportation issues.
Chair Johnson asked if the Sports Complex will be part of the SunCal Presentation, to which Mr.
Keliher replied, ""yes."" He said that the Business Plan will include the commercial and retail
assumptions. Mr. Calthorpe added that the core area has to be built last, that a Main Street
environment cannot be built until the retail demand is in place.
Chair Johnson opened discussion to the public speakers. There were several speakers, most of
whom were in favor of supporting SunCal's plan. The ones that were not in favor of the SunCal
plan were concerned about the density of proposed mid-rise (12-20 story residential units), non-
Measure A compliance, and transportation issues.
Member deHaan requested Mr. Keliher verify that the density of Alameda on the west end,
specifically the Summer Homes, was 30 units per acre and three-stories high. His concern
regarding the density was the Tube traffic and the alternative of bringing the bus service through
the Tube. Mr Keliher assured member deHaan that all these details are currently being vetted
out with Fehr & Peers and will be presented at their public meeting. Ms. Potter further explained
that there is always only going to be two lanes in the tube, and what one of the alternatives is, is
for a queue-jump lane for the bus, which doesn't require additional lanes. The queue-jump lane",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,3,"gives priority to the buses and encourages increased ridership. Mr Keliher added that all
questions will be answered between the concept plan submittal and master plan submittal, and
that the transportation solution is a driving factor.
Member Gilmore requested a meeting before the City Council which is focused on transportation
issues be part of SunCal's presentation schedule. Mr. Keliher affirmed her request. Member
Gilmore further discussed that the two plans are not Measure A compliant, and asked what
SunCal's plan was if the citizens were to reject their proposals. Mr Keliher responded by saying
that they have no magic Measure A plan that could be financed, and there is no third alternative,
they would have to start over. Member Gilmore appreciated his honesty on the matter.
Member Matarrese addressed the transportation issue regarding commercial traffic - truck
routes, etc., and asked whether there was going to be a recommendation from the Transportation
Commission. Ms. Potter explained that the plan is to route the Development Concept to all the
boards and commissions for review and comment. Member Gilmore requested that the school
year commute traffic also be addressed.
Member Matarrese requested to see a commercial and industrial component of the plan, to be
examined with the same depth, what might be envisioned, and what are some of the plans to
bring the commercial and businesses in. He further discussed that Alameda does not have a
large commercial tax base. Economically, the tax burden is spread and residential tax payers are
shouldering the main load and maybe are at capacity. He would like to know the best mix of
commercial and how we might attract commercial business.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the importance of their role (as the ARRA Board) for the long-term in
guiding and approving a Development Plan that future councils and the community can
adaptively react to, manage, and govern under different challenges; as this plan will manifest
beyond the time that they're on this Board. She stated it is important to focus on the vision and
the core principles incorporated in the General plan, as they will all be pertinent 15 years later.
Chair Johnson thanked Pat and SunCal for doing a good job of working with the community and
being forthright with them. It's a difficult challenge and she appreciates all their efforts.
Member deHaan asked about the Fed-to-fed transfer to the VA of some of the property. Mr.
Keliher replied that SunCal has to assume the potential impacts of the VA hospital whether it
happens or not, stating that it devalues the other phases. They would work hand-in-hand with
the VA, making certain that the infrastructure and traffic impacts are taken in consideration. For
example, a VA Hospital is a 24/7 facilities hospital, it doesn't operate just during peak hours, so
when the traffic element is applied, it's another challenge. Member Matarrese requested dollar
figures attached to any reports on the this issues, stating that if the plan is for a Fed-to-Fed
transfer, then that cost should be shaved-off the $108M price for the impacts caused by the
remaining federal land.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- RAB Comment Letter Regarding Installation Remediation Site 1
Member Matarrese wasn't able to attend last meeting, but received communication, a letter, from
Co-chair, George Humphreys, regarding the Site 1 remediation plan and Record of Decision
(ROD) which raised a lot of questions. The ARRA board took the position that they would not
accept uncharacterized landfill from Site 1, which was supposed to be scooped and removed",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,4,"after characterization. Mr. Humphreys provided a summary of his letter and discussed some of
the technical details, highlighting the deficiencies in the Navy's proposed plan to remediate Site
1.
Mr. Humphreys explained that his letter is straightforward, stating that Site 1 has been releasing
contaminants to the bay for a number of decades and deficiencies in the site need to be remedied.
There is uncharacterized industrial-type waste that could be released in event of earthquakes,
shoreline erosion, inundation by global warming, and by burrowing animals. The City asked for
trenching, with the stated objectives to verify there weren't any intact drums. The trenching
report showed that, of the 11 trenches the Navy identified, seven of them showed levels of
radioactive contamination. It was concluded that the radium contamination is widespread and
scattered. He said a letter was sent from the Navy to the environmental agencies proposing to
move portions of Site I to Site 32, to shrink site 1, because they had found radioactive waste
deeper. He also described photos of liquefaction and sand boils during the Loma Prieta
earthquake, which he explained was a mechanism of how contaminated waste could be released
in the future, if left in place.
Member Matarrese reiterated that we have expertise on this board and commended the RAB for
taking a vote, making a stand and bringing these issues to light. He had two key concerns; first
that the material found was not ordinary household waste, rather, it is industrial waste plus
radioactive, which appears to be pervasive. It seems the Navy glossed over this in their proposed
plan. Secondly, Member Matarrese commented that it was disturbing that the plan was to
excavate some of the radioactive material and just bury it on another part of Alameda Point. He
requested the Board get a technical recommendation corroborating this report so that the ARRA
can take a position with the Navy and the regulators that what is proposed is not acceptable.
David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, said that staff would have something by the next
ARRA meeting.
Debbie Potter, in response to Member Matarrese's concern about the waste being relocated,
clarified the process. She explained that, at the request of the City, additional trenching was
done which identified more radioactive materials than anticipated. The Navy conducted a time-
critical removal of hot spots at Site 1, and proposed to move some of the remaining fill to Site
32. The plan was to grow Site 32, continue to test and modify boundaries so that Site 1
boundaries no longer included radioactive material. All this would trigger a brand new public
process for comment, new proposed plans, and provide input on how it should be remediated.
Member Matarrese viewed the relocation plan as a stall tactic and stated that the Navy should be
forced to remove the waste to a secure facility. Ms. Potter stated that the Navy will remove all
radioactive waste. Member Matarrese questioned why, if it were safe, does it have to be moved
and buried. Ms. Potter explained that it was her understanding that they are moving it in order to
excavate along the shoreline to address seismic issues. Dale Smith, RAB member, added that the
materials being moved were hazardous, but not radioactive. Chair Johnson stated that she
generally doesn't like the idea of moving the waste to another site, even if it's not contaminated.
Mr. Humphreys added that a key point is that there was no sampling of the soil inside that cell
area, which would determine if there were any non-radioactive materials (i.e., PCBs, heavy
metals, etc.).
The Board requested that Peter Russell, Alameda Point's environmental consultant, provide a
technical analysis of the materials from the RAB regarding Site 1, a written report of highlights
after every RAB meeting, and his analysis on Navy documents he's reviewed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-09-10,5,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair Tam informed the other Members that Michael Park from the Alameda Theater
would like to schedule a re-shoot of the Council Members for his film that previews movies,
because of construction noise in the background.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:22 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Aluma Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-09-10.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:36 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize Execution of a No-Cost Sublease for Alameda Development Corporation at
Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member Tam,
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Executive Director's Recommendation Regarding Disposition of the
Notices of Interest for the Homeless Accommodation/Public Benefit Conveyances for
the North Housing Parcel and Authorize the Executive Director to Negotiate the
Required Legally Binding Agreement
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave a brief overview of the
item, stating that in November 2007, the Navy declared the North Housing Parcel, an additional
42 acre parcel, as surplus. The ARRA, as the Local Reuse Authority (LRA) is charged with
conducting the federal screening process, a mandated step before the Navy can dispose of
property. Three Notice of Interests (NOIs) and two requests for Public Benefit Conveyances
(PBC's) were reviewed in early September. The NOIs were analyzed against a number of criteria
including what project was being proposed, how well the project met unidentified needs of
homeless needs assessment, financial feasibility, and the organization's capacity to carry out the
project. One NOI from the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation (EBALDC), didn't
meet the threshold requirement and was notified that they did not meet screening process. Of the
remaining two NOIs, the evaluation committee does not recommend moving forward with the
NOI received form Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) and Building Futures with Women and
Children (BFWC), to provide location for the Midway Shelter, in the event it loses it's lease
where currently located. There is a path forward to working with Navy on the existing location
of the shelter, which the Navy has committed to in writing to retain midway shelter in current
location. Also, the 42-acre site was not an appropriate location for a multi-service center, which
should be in central location accessible by public transit.
The committee is recommending the NOI received from the City Housing Authority, APC, and
BFWC for 120 units of permanent supportive housing for formerly homeless people, with the
recommendation to move forward at 90 units rather than 120 units.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,2,"The two PBCs received were from the City's Recreation and Park department and from Habitat
for Humanity for self-help housing. We are recommending the PBC from Rec and Park, and will
indicate our support for Habitat for Humanity for 20 to 30 units of self-help housing. The Habitat
for Humanity PBC is approved by the federal housing agency, HUD; and the Department of
Interior would approve the Rec and Park PBC.
The next step is to begin negotiating a Legally Binding Agreement (LBA). The LBA is an
agreement document that goes forward to HUD, along with our amendment to the Community
Reuse Plan (Reuse Plan), HUD reviews the Reuse Plan and makes the ultimate determination of
how well it meets the needs of homeless accommodation. We are scheduling two community
meetings in November, on the 3rd with the Planning Board, and on Nov. 24th on the amendment
to the Reuse Plan, and draft LBA at its Dec. 3 meeting. The statutory requirement is to get
everything to HUD in December.
Member Matarrese asked how HUD weighs different factors during their evaluation of the
proposals. Ms. Potter explained that typically, the screening process regulations are broadly
drafted in order to give local jurisdictions a lot of leeway and opportunity for the Reuse Plan to
meet their needs. What they are looking for is a balance of homeless accommodation, and what
they call ""other community goals"", in terms of job generation, economic development, housing,
and open space. Member Matarrese asked if there is a previous process which we were involved
in. Ms. Potter replied that the 1996 Community Reuse Plan was the last time we were involved
in that process. Member Matarrese informed staff and the Board that he just received a letter
from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) regarding the remediation of site
where the Midway Shelter is located. The letter informed of DTSC's plan to evaluate the impact
of removing viscous material and widespread contaminated material from that site. Staff will
follow-up.
Chair Johnson called public speakers. Doug Biggs, Interim Executive Director of the APC spoke
in support of the city's recommendation. He discussed the homelessness crisis in today's
economy. Liz Varela, Executive Director of the BFWC, supports Doug Bigg's comments, and
appreciates the City's recommendation on the BFWC NOI and its efforts of relocating the
Midway Shelter.
Member deHaan asked staff to give a background on the remediation requirements and how the
Navy is going to address that. Ms. Potter explained that the south east corner of the North
Housing parcel, there is a plume which extends to that area and will be remediated. The Navy
has started remediation of the plume, and we made it clear when we put out the request that there
is an environmental issue. None of the proposals we received asked for property anywhere near
that site. There has been prior time-critical removal that has all been completed. Ms. Potter
added that there was no removal under hardscapes or roads, so anyone who will develop that site
has to take that in consideration.
Member Matarrese expressed concern that we should not move forward where uncalculated
liability for any unremediated land is passed on to any future to non-profit.
Member Matarrese motioned to provide direction that in the Community Reuse Plan and
in the negotiations of the LBA we include disclosure of significant liability of
uncharacterized contamination under hardscape and contamination beyond two feet, and
that we have these LBAs come back to ARRA. The motion was seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,3,"3-B. Report on Restoration Advisory Board Comment Letter on Installation Restoration
Site 1.
Ms. Potter summarized that at the ARRA meeting on September 10, the Board received several
letters regarding Site 1. Staff was directed to work with the environmental consultant, Dr. Peter
Russell, to prepare a response to RAB letters. The ARRA's position is that land fill should be
dug up and hauled off, this position has been consistent during the public comment process,
which is not concluded. A final draft Record of Decision (ROD) is due on Oct. 28th, which will
give us further opportunity to provide comments on the final draft ROD. However, as all of this
work has been going on, the results of the additional trenching did not reveal waste, so the sense
is that there is no longer a landfill at Site 1. We would like to send a letter to the Navy
requesting they do a little more work to determine whether a land fill is still present at Site 1.
The Navy began remediation on groundwater contamination.
Member Matarrese reminded staff that the original concern expressed was, not that there was a
landfill, but that it was uncharacterized and unknown. He wants to make sure all contaminated
materials are removed, and inert ones remain in place. Ms. Potter stated that we must go through
the CERCLA process, and that the time-critical removal was for the material down to two feet.
Member Matarrese asked how Site 1 could be closed if there is still objectionable material there.
Ms. Potter responded by stating that the work effort and investigation as part of IR Site 32 work
includes going further than two feet, and the moving of the materials allows the changing of the
boundaries of the IR sites and what they are studying. Member Matarrese would like a risk
assessment provided to the City with anticipated development in mind - to build a case for the
ultimate price tag for the property, i.e., if the property goes to auction, the contamination status
would affect the price.
There were two speakers on this item. James Leach, RAB member for 9 years, is there
voluntarily because they are experts and have done clean-up and provide oversight to a high
degree. George Humphreys, Co-Chair of the RAB, commented on Dr. Russell's evaluation of
the Site 1 issue.
Member Matarrese motioned to accept the report with future reports to include a risk
assessment of the significant issues being discussed from a technical standpoint. The
motion was seconded my Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes -
5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
Ms. Potter discussed two additional recommendations included in the staff report; first was the
request for authorization to request that the Navy further explore issue of whether there is still a
landfill, and second, that staff be given authorization to prepare and send a letter on the draft
final ROD. Since there is no opportunity to provide back to ARRA before it's sent, Member
Matarrese suggested it come back to the Board at a the second Council meeting in November
(November 18).
Member Matarrese motioned to approve the two additional recommendations, seconded by
Member deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions -
0.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative.
- Highlights of September 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-10-01,4,"Member Matarrese stated that the next RAB meeting is tomorrow night and the minutes from the
last meeting have been presented.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which the
governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
There was one speaker, Bill Smith, who spoke about various topics.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan asked if there was an update on the GSA property behind Foster Freeze. Ms.
Potter informed him that staff will get and update and provide it to the City Manager as an Off-
Agenda item.
Member Matarrese stated that the Board has received a stack of documents from SunCal, but has
not seen a document that fits the description of a Business Plan. He requested that staff ask
SunCal for a business plan. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, affirmed Member
Matarrese's request.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:12 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-10-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-05,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
The meeting convened at 7:26 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 10, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 1, 2008.
2-C. Approve a Permanent Waiver of License Fees for Alameda Unified School District Student
Activities.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Building 43 & Associates,
Inc. at Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member
deHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - O.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, summarized SunCal's
submission of Development Concept pursuant to the ENA on September 19th. During October,
SunCal presented its Development Concept to eight boards and commissions, and received
feedback. Comments received were provided in the staff report and presented to give the ARRA
an opportunity to follow-up on the comments from the boards and commissions, provide
feedback, and to hear additional comments from the public. The draft Master Plan, a more
detailed land plan, is due to on Dec.19, and will be presented to the ARRA Board at its January
7th regular meeting.
As SunCal has indicated, the current land plan has residential densities beyond those permitted in
Measure A, therefore, SunCal would need a vote of the people to implement its land plan. They
have until April 30, 2009 to decide to pursue a ballot initiative. Business terms between SunCal
and the CIC is due by June 2010. There is a Council resolution of Fiscal Neutrality mandated for
base reuse, so a project proforma, an analyses of project cost and revenues to determine project
feasibility, is being prepared. Alameda Point is within the APIP redevelopment area. When
Alameda Point is conveyed, that new development will generate revenue and value, which will
result in incremental increase in property taxes paid. The project must create the value to
generate the tax increment that the CIC can then choose to invest in the project. There is no tax
increment without project, therefore it is not possible to determine which tax increment funds, if",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-05,2,"any, are available without completing the project proforma and negotiating a DDA, which is due
in June 2010. The CIC has made no commitment of funds to the project. Its only obligation is to
negotiate in good faith on both the land plan and public./private partnership until the ENA
expires in June of 2010. The DDA must be approved by the City Council and the CIC; and until
the DDA is approved, it is not possible for the CIC to commit funds to the project. Under the
terms of the ENA, SunCal is paying for all city staff costs and third party consultant costs
consistent with the requirement for the fiscal neutrality that we demand.
Member Matarrese referred to the comments included in the staff report and stated that it was
important to make a distinction whether the points being raised were from the boards or from
individuals.
Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager gave the presentation. The presentation
will be made available on SunCal's website. At the conclusion of the presentation, Chair Johnson
called all of the speakers first:
Corinne Lambden - concerned about the historical relevant structures, and would like Board to
consider all options of adaptive reuse before permanently destroying them. Mary Fetherolf -
thanked SunCal for the presentation and asked a couple of process questions about where to find
the financial models and assumptions of the project, and about the draft Master Plan. Elizabeth
Krase - spoke on behalf of AAPS. She discussed concerns about the historic buildings planned
for demolition, stating that it's not acceptable. Doug Biggs - APC has enjoyed participating in
the SunCal community process and supports SunCal's plan. 'Chelle Fredrick - excited to see
the progress that has been made, encouraged by the plan that acknowledges the unprecedented
potential of Alameda point yet still recognizes the constraints. Diane Lichtenstein - echoed what
Mi'Chelle Frederick said. Interested in how the development will happen, and would like to see
more of the integration and diversity in the types of housing and structures. Helen Sause -
congratulated Member deHaan and Member Gilmore for their re-elections. Had a request that the
city undertake an active role in developing the transit system which addresses the whole island.
Gretchen Lipow - discussed fiduciary responsibility of the Alameda Point project. Nancy
Heastings - from HOMES, complimented SunCal on its transit oriented design, and wanted to
know the date and review process for the transportation plan. John Knox White -requested the
ARRA really give direct direction to SunCal as to what they would like to support before the
process moves forward. He discussed that we cannot try to react to the market, we need to look
at something that has that flexibility, and a plan we can be proud of in 50 or 100 years. Arthur
Lipow - discussed the poor economy and traffic mitigation issues, and suggested an alternative
of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust that could have productive uses of the structures.
Susan Decker - supports SunCal's plan and the flexibility in their process. Encouraged that it
would produce something that is truly an asset to Alameda. Michael Krueger - agreed with most
of the speakers and is supportive of SunCal's plan.
Chair Johnson explained that this meeting has to be recessed in order to reconvene the PUB
meeting of earlier.
Meeting was recessed at 9:15 p.m. by Chair Johnson. All Board members agreed that Item
3-A (SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at a
Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.
Respectfully submitted,
ArmaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
The meeting convened at 9:43 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to Agreement with Russell
Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $147,500 to the Budget.
2-B. Approve a One-year Lease with Two One-Year Options with Makani Power for a Portion
of Hangar 12.
Member deHaan motioned approval of the Consent Calendar, seconded by Member
Matarrese, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
This portion of the meeting is a continuation of the Regular ARRA Meeting of 11/5, which
was recessed by Chair Johnson. On 11/5, all Board members agreed that Item 3-A
(SunCal's Development Concept) and the balance of the 11/5 agenda be continued at the
Special ARRA Meeting scheduled on November 18, 2008.
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Review and Comment on SunCal's Development Concept
(Continued from the November 5, 2008 Regular Meeting)
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, provided an overview
regarding the purpose of presenting SunCal's Development Concept, which was to solicit
feedback and comments from the ARRA to move forward with the draft Master Plan, which is
due Dec. 19th
Chair Johnson called the public speakers first. Michael Krueger reiterated a point that if any
board member cannot support the plan for whatever reason, now is the appropriate time to
discuss and raise objections, and what changes need to be made. Arthur Lipow discussed his
concerns about the impact of the bankruptcies of SunCal Companies to the Alameda Point
project. Susan Decker discussed her continued support of the Plan.
The Board reminded the public that the list of questions from the last meeting on Nov. 5th has
been summarized and will be addressed this evening. Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point
Project Manager, Matthew Ridgway of Fehr and Peers, Peter Calthorpe and Peter Tagami, of
California Capital Group, were present to answer questions.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,2,"Member Gilmore stated that a key issue revolves around the feasibility of implementation and
the traffic solutions - how to move people on and off the island. She discussed this as being a big
part of her comfort level with regard to whether the plan can be executed. She wants to see real
life examples of the solutions in place and working, and does not want Alameda to be the
experiment. Member Matarrese had two transportation-related points: how we are addressing
commute in the tube into China Town, and truck routes, how are we moving goods?
Matthew Ridgway, consultant from Fehr & Peers, addressed the transportation issues. He stated
that traffic congestion is expected to be worse, regardless of Alameda Point redevelopment, as
moving traffic to/from Alameda Point is secondary next to the traffic moving through the tube
and the 880 corridor. One of the questions was whether the option of a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
was out. Mr. Ridgway responded 'no', but is reserving the right of way to bus transit alignment.
He further discussed that the project is developer funded and funding will be sought from AC
Transit and other funding sources. Another question was regarding buy-in of other stakeholders.
Mr. Ridgway explained that they are working with AC Transit for funding issues and Caltrans on
Broadway/Jackson improvements, but there is a much larger group of stake holders, and they are
not assuming things outside of Alameda's purview.
The Board had requested a matrix be created. Mr. Ridgway prepared a draft which highlights
major differences between the three plans, the APCP plan, the WRT plan, and the current SunCal
plan. One of the major differences they realized was having an onsite school, which was carried
forward to the current AP transportation strategy. A rapid bus element was not definitive in
other plans, but in the current AP transportation strategy, it is definitive to fund a rapid bus
transit system, also proposing to fund construction and operating costs for an additional BRT line
across the whole island to the Fruitvale BART station in order to increase transit use throughout
the island. A bikeshare program is being proposed; and another dramatic difference is a
progressive parking plan, which was in the APCP plan, and is carried forward to the current plan.
Shared parking, unbundling cost of residential parking, commercial fee based-parking, parking
maximums, limit number of auto trips - new elements included in the summary of the matrix
proposed to reduce auto trips.
Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese were concerned about the passive incentives of parking,
which did not have the effect that was intended, because other transportation hasn't been
provided. Member Gilmore discussed these unintended consequences and not being able to lure
business to site because there is not enough parking. Member deHaan discussed the real life
situation in Alameda, that streets upon streets are constrained because of no parking. He stated
his concern that lack of parking has not driven Alamedans to use public transportation.
Mr. Ridgway explained that possibly parking shortages weren't in tandem with a whole host of
transportation alternatives. They are proposing to implement the transportation alternatives and
provide the level of parking that would balance with those alternatives - to be effective
economically and be viable. They are trying to develop a plan that addresses all these issues.
Chair Johnson stated that if we insure other transportation alternatives were available, people
would use it.
Vice Chair Tam discussed the City's settlement with Oakland China town over the impact of the
Alameda Point project with traffic in China Town - a traffic level threshold was generated, and
the appropriate level was 1800 units. She asked Mr. Ridgway if their mitigation measures are all
to get back to that threshold level. Mr. Ridgway affirmed, stating that they are marketing the
plan as a green development - you live here because you only have one car or no car - the
people that have a lifestyle with fewer or no automobiles would want to live here.
Another question addressed how the water emergency transit authority will interface and will
meet the needs for maintenance and fueling facilities, and if this can be accommodated at",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,3,"Alameda Point. Mr. Ridgway explained that they have looked at the issue of relocation of the
ferry terminal to the estuary or to sea plane lagoon, but have not looked at dredging or fueling
stations; and have not reached that level of detail at this point.
Another request from the Board was to provide examples of transit alternatives. Fehr & Peers
provided a handout with information which cites several examples. Studies included comparative
analysis of transit uses among specific cities in the bay area. They are diligent in citing statistics
and research conducted nationally to reduce the number of auto trips. Regarding funds for island
wide transportation solutions, Mr. Ridgway stated that operating and capital cost are being borne
by the Alameda Point project. In response to the request to have an analysis of how many vehicle
trips this plan will create, Mr. Ridgway said that a detailed phasing plan will be included in the
Dec. 19 draft master plan.
Member Matarrese reiterated that the PDC and concept plan didn't address the issue of goods
and services moving on and off Alameda Point - truck routes, etc. for commercial and retail. He
stressed that this is a critical component that needs to be addressed.
For Peter Calthorpe addressed the next category of issues regarding adaptive reuse and light
industrial questions, and questions regarding examples of other transit oriented development.
Mr. Calthorpe gave a presentation of several examples of comparable mixed use developments,
housing over retail, live-work - in other bay area cities including Oakland, Richmond, Daly City,
San Mateo, and San Jose. Alameda Point has a unique component to offer which attracts entities
to the various mixed-use elements, that Alameda Point has the ability to have a large company
""campus"".
Vice Chair Tam asked Mr. Calthorpe to comment on creating that buffer between the different
types of uses so there are no inherent conflicts that city councils have to deal with. Mr.
Calthorpe explained that, until you get to real industrial uses, you don't have to buffer. The
beauty of that mix, the services, parks and shops are double duty - if you put a store in a
typically residential neighborhood, it won't be used - but if you put it in mixed use - it's used
throughout the day, a better viability and keeps folks out of their cars. We're all focused on
transit mode.
Member deHaan asked about adaptive reuse and light industry, and the compatibility of this? Mr.
Calthorpe stated that the parcels for commercial development are not best used as light
industrial, rather as low-rise office, and some historic reuse that can be industrial; explaining that
when you invest this much in public infrastructure, the parks and transit - you don't want to
dedicate land to light industrial - it would be underutilization for light industrial. Member
Matarrese wanted to discuss the potential reuse of hangars.
Phil Tagami, of California Capital Group, continued the presentation by discussing adaptive
reuse of the historical district structures. He discussed the tax credits and identified the protected
historic districts. His focus is on 23 of 86 buildings identified, including the flight tower and the
dive building. In total, he was asked to study 1.3M sq. ft. of space, as well as preserving and
protecting the open space that is part of that. One of the tests of being able to restore the
buildings is to give equal attention, respect to the buildings, and early involvement is key -
having the opportunity to transition and put the site into reuse NOW would protect from further
decay, create use and activity, and generate more revenue. There is a demand for certain
activities and good transitional uses; now is the opportunity to have the time to become intimate
with these buildings and begin process of next phase.
Member deHaan stated that the Navy had an inventory of the historical buildings and had desires
and needs for specific ones. He asked how far we are in that process and does it relate to the 23
of 86 buildings. Mr. Tagami stated that they are 1/3 of the way done and there is a lot of due
diligence that needs to be exercised. He further explained that the Navy hasn't fully processed",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,4,"the application for the historic district. Clear policies and a well-thought-of redevelopment effort
requires patience, due diligence, and there will be verbal sparring - a challenge and constraint
that they are ready to engage in. Mr. Tagami discussed a similar situation with the Fox Theatre
in Oakland - there were more reasons why you can't renovate the building versus why you can -
and there's a shorter time horizon here at Alameda Point, so they are willing to explore adaptive
reuse prior to transfer and are ready to take that risk.
Member Matarrese asked whether Mr. Tagami has had discussions with the City regarding
transitional use prior to transfer and whether we are pursuing this. Member Matarrese stated that
this option was a way to get us closest to the plan without losing the assets out there, as there is
copper mining, vandalism, and no funds to secure property. Mr. Tagami said that he
has
expressed this desire and that SunCal has beginnings of communication with the City. It is an
ongoing process, but they want to mind their role, focus on due diligence and underwriting, but
said that when the time is appropriate, they would be prepared to engage in that dialogue.
Member Matarrese asked if the appropriate time is now and if they are prepared to engage in that
dialogue now. Member Matarrese expressed to the Board that they consider giving direction to
move this issue as a priority. Vice Chair Tam discussed that the heavy capital makes the council
and the board reluctant to make investments for property we don't own. Mr. Tagami explained
that they often go at risk and are not asking the city to go at risk. They evaluate current
increment expense, have a good track record of delivering value, all of which requires a team
approach. They will expend the time, energy and money. Chair Johnson asked if DSD wants to
move forward with interim adaptive reuse.
Debbie Potter explained that the key components to the partnership and business deal is the
leasing program and at what point to transition that leasing program. These discussions are
underway, and staff is interested in understanding what SunCal and Phil Tagami are proposing.
Taking over the leasing program and expanding that program, renovating and identifying what
uses can be derived from those if renovated. David Brandt, Deputy Executive Director, added
that there was also discussion of starting with restoring one building at a time.
Chair Johnson stated that there are lots of benefits to adaptive reuse prior to transfer and that we
should move forward. Member Gilmore asked how many of the 23 buildings are currently under
lease, to which Ms. Potter replied that most are not, because they are in poor condition. Member
Gilmore discussed working something out with Suncal and Mr. Tagami for taking over historic
properties that are not under lease, to rehab and get them for productive use, and the sooner the
better. Ms. Potter explained that we should continue the analysis, what they can expect for a
revenue stream, and how willing are they to go at risk for buildings we don't own. Mr. Tagami
explained that all properties need time on task; they need to take stock of the buildings, introduce
them back on marketplace. It will take lots of work, and there will be obstacles and tears shed,
but they are up for the challenge and there is no excuse not to engage.
Mr. Keliher wanted to make it clear that SunCal has not engaged staff in any kind of detail about
this particular issue, in response to Chair Johnson's request that SunCal communicate with staff
on more regular basis staff so they can have a better understanding of possibilities, and they are
not caught by surprise. Ms. Potter stated that she didn't intend to give that impression, and that
the issue just hasn't been discussed in great detail. She explained that SunCal and Tagami have
to do their deal before they can come to the City with a proposal. The Board and staff were all in
agreement that there are advantages to moving forward with rehabilitation on the structures that
can be saved, and to make it a priority to move forward on discussions and do it as quickly as
possible.
Member Matarrese proposed that the ARRA direct staff to get into discussions with
SunCal and Phil Tagami tomorrow and bring an update back on what the discussions have
been like and what the choke points are; and this issue can be discussed as a separate
activity that runs parallel to the development. All Boardmembers agreed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-11-18,5,"Vice Chair Tam expressed that the key to a successful project is flexibility in reacting to the
changing economic conditions. In the next decade there is some expectation that the sustained
downturn in economy will require job creation, and looking at the potential for self sustaining for
energy level for the entire island, maybe there are some partnerships with AP&T, such as a solar
farm, or other type of renewable energy source. Vice Chair Tam supports the plan, as it reflects
and captures sentiment that we've been hearing throughout the community and public
workshops. Chair Johnson stated that there needs to be discussion about the phasing of public
amenities at some other appropriate point.
FM - reiterate some comments from last time including that the plan needs work on
environmental issues such as the working waterfront, which showers noise upwind. He
expressed that it's an odd place to put a neighborhood. He also mentioned not wanting to see
plans that have sidewalk dining because it's freezing cold near the waterfront - and no water
play in park. He cited that there are plenty of lessons in town to learn from, discussing the Bay
Street, Emeryville situation where there is residential over retail and the problems that come
from that type of development. Member Matarrese stated examples are all around that we should
consider, and would like the same level of detail in the final plan that has been given to
residential, given to commercial and light industrial.
Member dehaan asked SunCal about a survey that they were conducting with Alameda residents.
Mr. Keliher clarified that the survey is preliminary and is sponsored by SunCal and not the City.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative.
- Highlights of October 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting. (Continued from the November
5, 2008 Regular Meeting)
Member Matarrese provided a brief presentation. He discussed highlights from the ARRA
meeting of Sept. 10th The BCT gave an update and of the fiscal year and their activities, and
there were comments on the transfer of FOST for site IR 15.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-11-18.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-12-02,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
The meeting convened at 11:18 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-C
1.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Beverly Johnson
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Lena Tam
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Petris Air Work Industries, Inc. dba
Alameda Aerospace at Alameda Point.
This item was pulled from the agenda and not addressed. It was continued to the January
7, 2009 regular ARRA meeting. (This item was subsequently submitted as an off-agenda).
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Approve the Community Reuse Plan Amendment and Legally Binding Agreement for the
Homeless Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel
This item was continued to a Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA and Housing Authority
Board of Commissioners on February 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of November 6 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the 11/6 RAB meeting and did not have a report. He was
attending a Council meeting on 11/6.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2008-12-02,2,"7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 11:19 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2008-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:25 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
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 November 5, 2008.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of November 18, 2008.
2-C. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of December 2, 2008.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Mariusz Lewandowski dba
Woodmasters at Alameda Point.
2-E. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Alameda Soccer Club at
Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize the Sale of Four Boston Whalers to NRC for $44,500.
Approval of the Consent Calendar was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by
Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions:
0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Alameda Point Update - Presentation of SunCal's Draft Redevelopment Master Plan.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, addressed several topics
actively discussed in the community and clarified that tonight's update is for information only,
neither staff nor SunCal has requested formal action on the Master Plan. It is an opportunity for
the community to comment on the draft Master Plan and for the ARRA Board to provide
feedback to SunCal. Because SunCal's plan is not consistent with the City's charter, as it
proposes a mix of residential structures that include multi-family rental and condo projects, this
master plan can only be approved by a vote of the people. SunCal anticipates placing its plan
on the ballot for the communities' consideration in November of this year, and the ENA requires
SunCal to notify the City no later than April 30 if it plans to proceed with the ballot initiative.
Tonight's presentation is part of the ongoing community dialogue that will continue over the next
18 months, as the City and SunCal negotiate a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA)
for the long term redevelopment of Alameda Point. Two key issues have been the focus of
discussion: 1) the concept of a public trust modeled on the Presidio trust for Alameda Point, and",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,2,"2) the amount of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) investment in the Alameda
Point project and whether or not that investment of redevelopment dollars adversely impacts the
City's general fund which is responsible for financing critical city services.
Ms. Potter discussed the Presidio conveyance model - a transfer from military ownership via
special legislation to the National Park Service and was not subject to BRAC requirements - it
was determined that the same conveyance model is not feasible for Alameda Point. Alameda
Point is subject to BRAC, was previously screened for other federal agency uses, was screened
pursuant to the McKinney-Vento act for homeless uses, and is required to be conveyed at fair
market value for private ownership and reuse. The ARRA is working with the Navy to negotiate
a conveyance term sheet to transfer the property and provide for its ultimate reuse as a mixed-
use community that generates jobs, provides housing for all incomes, and opens up the
waterfront and creates new recreational opportunities for Alameda and the region. To achieve
that goal, the City entered into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with SunCal.
Ms. Potter addressed the issue of tax increment funds, clarifying that there cannot be a pledge
of tax increment funds without a DDA, approved by the City Council and CIC in public following
a public hearing, therefore, any approval of tax increment funding will only happen after input
and participation from the community. If tax increment funds are raised through the sale of tax
increment bonds, those bonds are secured and repaid solely by tax increment funds generated
in the Alameda Point Redevelopment Project Area (APIP), and in no way obligate the City's
general fund. Based on current projections of the property value to be created by the build-out
of the master plan, staff anticipates that a maximum of $184 million of tax increment will be
created over the life of the project. This number is well short of the $700 million being
referenced in the community. It should also be noted that large portion of the $184 million is
restricted to the production of affordable housing.
Furthermore, several years ago, the City Council adopted a resolution stating that all base reuse
activities must pay for themselves and be fiscally neutral to the City's general Fund. The
Council recognized the task of integrating former military property into the larger Alameda
community would have a cost in terms of a need for the increase police and fire services, more
demand on Parks and public libraries, and increased maintenance of new roads and
infrastructure, and that cost should be borne by the new development. SunCal's draft Master
Plan is supported by a Business Plan that provides for fiscal neutrality.
Ms. Potter introduced Pat Keliher, SunCal's Alameda Point Project Manager, who presented the
draft Master Plan via Powerpoint presentation. Following the presentation, there were several
speakers who discussed various issues about the draft Master Plan.
Member deHaan is concerned about some issues in the draft Master Plan, specifically regarding
the plans for residential development, the sea level rising, and transportation issues. He also
discussed the plans for the Sports Complex and that the plan has not changed, except for the
price. He continues to have strong reservations.
In response to public comment, Member Gilmore asked SunCal to explain its financial viability,
the effect of the bankruptcies of other projects, predevelopment funding and where that money
comes from, what happens during the predevelopment period if SunCal doesn't come up with
the money, and how SunCal sees the financing unfolding once we get to a DDA.
Mr. Keliher explained that throughout ENA period, SunCal is required to reimburse the City for
any expenditures, and deposit money to spend on predevelopment dollars. This is done every
quarter and is audited. Once we get through the ENA period, and the DDA period, and",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,3,"determine how to actually finance the project, once the land is conveyed, there are several
different mechanisms, including debt & equity. With regard to the bankruptcies on the other
projects that SunCal was the operator on, not necessarily the owner of, most all of those were
Lehman projects. When Lehman filed bankruptcy and decided to not fund SunCal, SunCal
decided, involuntarily, to throw each of those projects into bankruptcy in hopes of forcing
Lehman to start to fund those. These projects are independently financed and structured and
have absolutely nothing to do with the Alameda Point project.
Member Gilmore reiterated the concern regarding SunCall's ability to fund predevelopment
expenses. Mr. Keliher explained that if SunCal defaults under the ENA and doesn't perform, it
is simply over. He further stated that, to date, SunCal has deposited all the funds. Both
Member Gilmore and Mr. Keliher clarified and confirmed that the ARRA is not obligated in any
way to reimburse SunCal for the predevelopment funds that have been spent.
There was discussion about the historic structures. Mr. Keliher is in agreement with the Board
that it's not the wisest move to proactively rip down the structures, and that SunCal will work
with staff on working out a process of evaluating the best direction.
Member Matarrese offered comments for consideration, including requesting detail of
commercial space, and what impact of those spaces would be with regard to traffic and truck
routes, and the industrial-type uses. Member Tam also asked about industrial uses, mixed-use
and residential. Peter Calthorpe described another similar project in San Jose where there was
a
balance of use in the commercial, civic, and retail areas. He stated that industrial
development needs to be treated in special way, explaining that it has not yet been determined
whether there are industrial users that are appropriate for this site and that should be part of the
mix.
Member Tam asked about the BCDC sea level rise, and the 24"" that one speaker mentioned.
Mr. Keliher responded that he has heard various levels, but that no one has come out with
specific number to design to, an issue that SunCal does not want to ignore. Member Tam
stated that we are at the point of our best and last opportunity to provide an economic stimulus
package without public subsidies or a tax on our general fund. This draft Master Plan produces
economic growth, a realistic transit system, and that the phasing will make it flexible enough to
respond to varying economic conditions, whether it's 15 years, or the next 20-30 yrs. Member
Tam stated her appreciation to staff and SunCal that the plan has been vetted very thoroughly
with the community.
Member Gilmore asked what would happen if the City breached its obligations under the ENA.
Donna Mooney, Asst. General Counsel, replied that the ENA is a contract and if the City doesn't
fulfill an obligation to it, it would be considered a breach of contract. SunCal would have a legal
remedy to this breach, which could include asking a court to make us come back and continue
negotiating, or it could be that the contract is terminated and we give back the $1 million
deposit.
Member Matarrese clarified that tax increment bonds are sold based on tax increment at the
time the bond is sold, not based on the development for which those bonds will spur. Ms. Potter
confirmed and explained that, typically, when you go to the market with debt and desire to raise
money through the sale of bonds, the project has to be at least three years into its development
so that the underwriters and folks interested in purchasing the bonds have an expectation of the
track record and then projections about the increment that will be generated over the life of the
project.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-01-07,4,"At Chair Johnson's request, Ms. Potter summarized the process and milestones of the ENA so
that the public understands that this is not the end of the process.
This report was for information only and no action was taken by the Board.
3-B. VA/Navy Presentation Regarding the Navy/VA Federal-to-Federal Transfer at Former
NAS Alameda.
Ms. Potter gave a brief overview about the 600 acres on western portion of Alameda Point
property. The Navy and VA have been in discussion for many years about its plans for the
development of the portion of the wildlife refuge property. She introduced Claude Hutchinson of
the VA. Mr. Hutchinson gave his presentation via Powerpoint to the Board and community,
summarizing the status of the fed-to-fed transfer The plans include a 50-acre above-ground
columbarium, a site for a VA outpatient clinic, and a non VA-owned hospital. Other presenters
included Patrick McKay of the Navy BRAC office; Dr. Ron Chun, VA outpatient clinic site
manager; Don Reiker, National Cemetary Assoc. regional director; Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager of the VA; and Jayni Alsep, the VA's environmental consultant from EDAW.
Chair Johnson clarified for the public that the ARRA is not a part of the transaction between the
Navy and the VA, and has no decision-making power in this transaction. She stated her
appreciation to the VA on its presentation and all its efforts for community involvement. Chair
Johnson also stated that although the ARRA has no control over this issue, we might be able to
cooperate if the VA was willing to look at other areas of the base.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that the Dec. 4 RAB meeting was 1/2 Christmas party and 1/2 highlights
of the coming year's projects.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-01-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-02-03,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
The meeting convened at 12:10 a.m. (on 2/4/09) with Chair Johnson
2-B
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 Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting, and the Special
CIC Meeting held on January 6, 2009. (City Clerk) [CIC].
2-B. Recommendation to authorize the use of $350,000 of Tax Exempt Bond Funds from the
Merged Area Bond (Funds 201.11 and 201.15) and appropriate the funds for use for the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Emergency Water Repairs and Electrical Upgrades
at Park Street and Buena Vista Avenue; and authorize FISC Lease Revenue for additional
annual support of the Façade Grant Program. (Development Services) [CIC and ARRA]
Item 2-B was pulled for discussion. Approval of Item 2-A was motioned by Member
Matarrese and seconded by Member Gilmore and passed by the following voice votes:
Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
Discussion of Item 2-B: Leslie Liittle, Development Services Director, summarized the project
and asked the Board for consideration so that the project can get underway for construction in
the October timeframe. The request is essentially an appropriation of $800,000 that staff
expects there will be a trade of some funds between the FISC and the CIC. The tax exempt
bonds will go into the FISC water project as a Public Works project and the FISC lease
revenues will come back to the CIC to be used outside of redevelopment project areas and
does not have the same restrictions as redevelopment funds.
Rob Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, discussed the current improvement program on Park
Street and urged the CIC/Board to approve the money for the undergrounding, the façade grant,
and the FISC property.
Approval of Item 2-B was motioned by Member Matarrese, seconded by Vice-Chair
deHaan, and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5 Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Recommendation to consider an amendment to the Lease Agreement of 2315
Central Avenue between the CIC of the City of Alameda, Lessor, and Alameda Wine
Company, LLC, Tenant. (Development Services) [CIC]",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-02-03,2,"Ms. Little gave a brief overview of Alameda Wine Company's request to amend their lease to
change their hours of operation. Staff is recommending no change to their lease at this time.
The tenant addressed the CIC explaining her request is due to financial reasons, stating that the
hours of 11:00 a.m.- - 4:00 p.m. are the least profitable for her business.
Member Matarrese motioned to follow staff's recommendation to keep the status quo and
defer any change to the Alameda Wine Company lease until such time that there is the
eventuality and risk of the business closing. Only at that time should this item be
brought back to the CIC. Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes: 3 Noes: 1 (Vice-Chair deHaan) Abstentions: 1. (Member
Tam)
3-B. Recommendation to approve a Five Year Lease and Repayment Plan/Write-off with
AC Hornet Foundation. (Development Services) [ARRA]
Ms. Little and Nanette Mocanu, Finance & Administration Division Manager, summarized the
Hornet's' repayment plan to alleviate their debt.
The Board gave direction to staff to bring this item back after revisions to the repayment plan to
include that the Hornet provide: a new business plan, credible financial reports, evidence of
creditors, and address the issue of the benefit to the ARRA of moving the Hornet for profitable
use of Pier 3. The Board also requested that a representative from the Hornet attend the
meeting when this item is brought back before the ARRA.
3-C. Recommendation to approve an amendment to Consultant Contract with Harris &
Associates for On-Call Services for Review of Land Development Entitlement
Applications for Redevelopment of Alameda Point. (Development Services) [ARRA]
This item was continued to the next Regular ARRA meeting on March 4, 2009.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of January 8th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese requested the Board review the handouts regarding OU-5 and OU-2B
technical details. The next RAB meeting is on Thursday, 2/5.
7.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, CIC
Meeting was adjourned at 1:22 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-03-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING of the
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA), AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC)
Wednesday March 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 10:30 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-B
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Torrey and Chair Johnson
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Accept Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Held Tuesday, January 6, 2009.
2-B. Accept Housing Authority Audit Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2008. The
Housing Commission and Chief Executive Officer recommend the Board of
Commissioners accept the audit report for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008.
2-C. Authorize Submission of Application for Replacement Vouchers for Esperanza
Residents.
Approval of the consent calendar was motioned by Commissioner Matarrese and
seconded by Commissioner Torrey and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 6
Noes: 0 Abstentions: 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Hold a Public Hearing to Approve an Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Resolution Adopting an Addendum to the Final Environmental
Impact Report for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and Fleet
Industrial Supply Center; Approving an Amendment to the 1996 Naval Air
Station Alameda Community Reuse Plan for the Main Street Neighborhoods
Subarea; and Approving a Legally Binding Agreement for a Homeless
Accommodation at the North Housing Parcel (LBA); and Approve a Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Resolution Approving a LBA and Related
Memorandum of Understanding.
Elizabeth Cook, Housing Development Manager, gave a presentation which was an
overview of the North Housing Parcel project.
Liz Varela, Executive Director, Building Futures for Women and Children (BFWC),
stated that they are excited about the project, as it's a great opportunity for their clients
to make change in a safe, stable housing, with support. Doug Biggs, Executive
Director, Alameda Point Collaborative, commented on a few points, stating that the
process has resulted in a really strong plan, and that all partners came together to
create a solid program which draws on the strengths of each provider, the Housing",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-03-04,2,"Authority (HA) and BWFC. He's excited that this plan will permanently end
homelessness. He reminded the board that the Homeless Needs Assessment was
done a year ago, March 2008, and today, the needs for the homeless is even greater.
He addressed a couple of issues discussed in the presentation, including the site plan.
He commented that the drawing is only a small portion of entire site, and that the
general plan principles are met: housing is closer to the Tinker Ave. transit corridor,
which makes for easy access to transportation and schools.
Regarding the
environmental clean up, Mr. Biggs stated that they are constrained by the ROD (Record
of Decision), which limits the Navy's culpability. He discussed that in the worse case to
comply with ROD, the HA came up with a plan built into the funding mix, as well as a
plan which is part of the service plan to set aside money for insurance. He assured the
Board that the project was made to be as risk-averse as much as possible
Member Matarrese stated a few modifications to the recommendation, including making
sure the eight acres stay contiguous, and that the Miracle League is specified within the
eight acres; that language is worked into the LBA that addresses if the remediation
insurance is cross prohibitive, we don't have to take title. Chair Johnson added the
provision that outside counsel, or counsel, should make any changes necessary to
ensure additional safeguards. Donna Mooney, ARRA General Counsel, summarized
that this is an ARRA motion approving the resolution (the addendum to final EIR),
amending the Community Reuse Plan, and approving the LBA as modified. The
motion was made by Chair Johnson, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
As the HABOC, the recommendation was to approve the resolution approving the MOU
between the Housing Authority, Alameda Point Collaborative, and Building Futures for
Women and Children; and approving the LBA as modified. The motion was made by
Commissioner Torrey, seconded by Commissioner Matarrese, and passed by the
following voice votes: Ayes - 6, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
4.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(Any person may address the governing body in regard to any matter over which
the governing body has jurisdiction that is not on the agenda.)
None.
5.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
6.
ADJOURNMENT - ARRA, HABOC
Meeting was adjourned at 11:50 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
AlumaElidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-03-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:14 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
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 March 4, 2009.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the ARRA/HABOC of March 4, 2009.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,
Building 13, at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Antiques by the Bay,
Building 459, at Alameda Point.
2-E.
Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht
Company at Alameda Point.
2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Building
29, at Alameda Point.
2-G. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners, Hangar
22, at Alameda Point.
2-H. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council, BSA Sea Scouts, Ancient
Mariner Regatta.
Staff requested to pull Items 2-E, 2-F, and 2-G. The balance of the consent calendar was
motioned for approval by Vice Chair deHaan, seconded by Member Tam, and passed by
the following voice votes: Ayes - 5, Noes - 0, Abstentions - 0.
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. LRA Presentation of Treasure Island Redevelopment - Jack Sylvan, San Francisco
Mayor's office.
Jack Sylvan of the San Francisco Mayor's office gave a powerpoint presentation of the Treasure
Island redevelopment project. After the presentation, Boardmembers asked questions
regarding the Treasure Island Development Authority (TIDA), its relationship with the Navy, and
if they were able to disclose their purchase price terms. Mr. Sylvan replied that he is not at",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,2,"liberty to discuss the term amount. The redevelopment challenges of the ARRA and TIDA are
very similar (transportation, density, etc.) noting that ARRA's Measure A and environmental
issues are a greater challenge.
3-B. Alameda Point Update.
Debbie Potter, Base Reuse and Community Development Manager, gave an overview of
SunCal's work over the past 60 days, including its work toward the March 26 submittal of its
Ballot Initiative. SunCal requested a Tidelands Summary be prepared. The summary was
prepared by City Attorney's office and transmitted to City Clerk's office. Once the notice is
published, SunCal can begin its signature-gathering process to be completed by June 17. If the
required number of qualified signatures is received, the City Council will have to take action to
place the initiative on the ballot by Aug. 7. Pursuant to the ENA, SunCal has until April 30 to
elect whether they're going to formally move forward with the ballot process or submit an
application that is consistent with existing law. A second milestone to be completed by April 30
is the required deposit to begin CEQA work. Staff anticipates coming back to the ARRA in May
with an award of contract for an EIR consultant. SunCal will also provide a presentation and
summary of the components of their initiative which will include a specific plan, community plan,
a Development Agreement, and various other amendments to the zoning ordinance and city's
general plan.
Member Matarrese requested that the timeline of the process be posted on the Alameda Point
website.
One speaker, Ashley Jones, directed a question to Mayor Johnson regarding her ability to be
impartial regarding the Measure A issue as it pertains to the redevelopment at Alameda Point.
Mayor Johnson replied that the speaker time is for the public to comment on the item and not for
discussion.
Janet Davis expressed concern about the contamination and the safeguards in place before
development begins. David Brandt explained to Ms. Davis that the agencies that are overseeing
the clean up are the EPA and the DTSC. Boardmembers also recommended Ms. Davis attend
the RAB meetings for more information on the environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Helen Sause spoke in support of the SunCal initiative and encouraged Alameda citizens to read
the information and understand it before making a decision.
3-C. Alameda Point Environmental Issues Update: Radiological Substance at West Shore
of Seaplane Lagoon and Block of Oversize Debris at North Shore of Seaplane
Lagoon.
This update is being provided to notify the ARRA board of several recent discoveries made by
the Navy in conjunction with a couple clean-up projects in the vicinity of the Seaplane Lagoon.
The Navy is currently working on amending a current clean-up contract to deal with radioactive
material, and also further investigating the block of concrete. Staff recommends that the ARRA
send a letter to the Navy with specific requests to resolve these issues including: requesting that
the Navy, as part of the analysis that they do on the radioactive material, that they rule out any
possibility that radioactive material could have come from anything other than the outfall that is
in the vicinity which carried a lot of waste from several buildings that dealt with radium paint -
and if they can't rule out that as the only possible source for that material - that they conduct a
base-wide radiological survey; the second request: that the Navy characterize the cement block
and inform of their decision on how to dispose of the concrete debris.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-04-01,3,"Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-04-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-05-19,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
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 April 1, 2009.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Extension for General Services
Administration at Alameda Point.
2-C. Accept the Interim Executive Director's Statement of Emergency Regarding Expenditures
for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Approve the Project Budget
Item 2-C was pulled by Member Tam for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar
was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed
by the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.
Item 2-C - Member Tam asked for clarification on whether or not the debris retrieved was
tested. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, explained that the debris was tested by
quarter, and not tested individually, because the intent is to haul everything off. Member Tam
also asked what kind of thresholds should be met to determine whether it was cleaned
accurately. Ms. Little stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) set
the standards for the cleanup.
Vice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese expressed concerns that the ARRA is now footing
the $1.6M bill for the demo of the burned building. They discussed Catellus' DA which obligates
them to do demolition, which included this building. Ms. Little explained that they're not
obligated to do the demo because they have not moved forward with any initial phase. She
further explained that an issue such as this is an unanticipated cost which clearly demonstrates
what these do to the fund balance.
Member Matarrese requested that the cost be transferred to the project and that Catellus
remain obligated to reimburse the ARRA. He requested the City Attorney provide feedback on
the proper legal options we have so that the project becomes encumbered. Terri Highsmith,
City Attorney, understood the direction and will provide the information requested.
Member Matarrese motioned for approval of Item 2-C with the provision of receiving
feedback from legal counsel on the possibilities of encumbering the cost to the project.
Member Tam seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: 5
ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-05-19,2,"3.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
4.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese attended the last RAB meeting and had
concerns about the Navy's cleanup direction - whether it is predicated on the PDC, or if
the Navy is remediating according to SunCal's concept plan. Member Matarrese
requested clarification of their method and also requested this item be agendized and
brought back to the ARRA at its next regular meeting.
5.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-06-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 3, 2009- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA received a briefing from its Real Property Negotiator and provided direction on
negotiations.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:15
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 3, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-06-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-07-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 8:20 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
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 June 3, 2009.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Vigor Marine, LLC at Alameda
Point.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Bay Ship & Yacht Co., Inc.
at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Renewal for Puglia Engineering of
California, Inc. at Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by Vice
Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of June 4th Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was unable to attend the June 4th meeting in which the OU-2 feasibility
study was discussed. The July RAB meeting is cancelled, so Member Matarrese will report on
the August Meeting.
Member Gilmore asked a question about the RAB's decision to have a facilitator from the Navy
to assist in conducting effective meetings. She was curious of the genesis of the idea, since the
RAB has been in existence for many years, why only now is the Navy providing a facilitator?
RAB member Michael Torrey stated that this is not the first time that the Navy is providing a
facilitator, but that the previous ones had to be cut due to funding issues. George Brooks, the
Navy's Environmental Coordinator, asked if there could be another facilitator. Member
Matarrese explained that the RAB Board changed and agreed that it was a positive step for the
RAB.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-07-07,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan asked for an update on the SunCal milestones. Assistant City
Manager, David Brandt, stated that there is a payment requirement due on July 19th, , and
qualified signatures, or an alternative plan, was due in mid September for the City Council
to accept. The Navy requirement is now July 2010.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m., by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-09-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 2, 2009- 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The Executive Director discussed price and terms regarding Alameda Point. No action was
taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:30
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Airna Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
September 2, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-09-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
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 September 2, 2009.
2-B. Approve the minutes of the Special Meeting of September 15, 2009.
2-C. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Three-Year Sublease Renewal for Piedmont
Youth Soccer Club at Alameda Point.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Dreyfuss Capital Partners in
Building 29 at Alameda Point Without a Waiver in Rent and a Right of First Offer for
Building 29 Only.
2-E. Amend the Contract and Project Budget for the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center by
Adding $500,000.
2-F. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sales Agreement, and Approve Disposing of
Personal Property at Alameda Point - Proposed Sale of Ship Waste Off-Loading Barge.
Item 2-D was pulled by staff and continued to the November meeting. Vice Chair deHaan
pulled Items 2-C and 2-E for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar (Items 2-
A, 2-B and 2-F) was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Discussion on Item 2-C:
Leslie Little, Economic Development Director, summarized the staff report. There were several
speakers. The speakers who were against the item were concerned about the soccer field and
Alameda resources being ceded to another city. They questioned what their fees pay for and
the availability of the fields to Alameda's soccer teams.
Chair Johnson explained that the Jack London Youth Soccer League created and manages the
pool of fields to which all the different soccer clubs can schedule games. The fields are not
exclusive and are open to all the communities at all times. The annual maintenance of the field
at Alameda Point is $40,000. Piedmont soccer does the maintenance, upkeep, take on that
responsibility, and Alameda clubs still have use of all the soccer fields.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,2,"Member deHaan was concerned that there would be a shortage of fields or available game-play
on the field for Alameda clubs. Dale Lillard, Park and Rec Director, explained that there has not
been a shortage of fields, and any shortage experienced was only due to the water rationing
mandated by EBMUD to help with the drought, not by any scheduling conflicts.
Member Matarrese clarified that this particular field at Alameda Point is not a City-owned field -
it still belongs to the Navy and it is not being ceded to another city, it is being leased. He further
explained that it is not any different than when the buildings are leased at Alameda point -
leasing is not restricted to Alameda only - and if that land was not leased to the Piedmont
soccer club, and because Alameda's Parks and Rec department didn't have the funds to
maintain the field, it would be a weed field.
There was further discussion from the representatives of the Jack London Youth Soccer Sports
League, Alameda Soccer Club, and the Piedmont Soccer Club. They answered questions
posed by the speakers and the Board, and further expressed their continued support and
maintenance of the Alameda Point field for the benefit of all the youth soccer clubs.
Item 2-C was motioned for approval by Member Matarrese, seconded by Member Tam
and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
Discussion on Item 2-E:
Leslie Little discussed staff's request to augment the existing budget for removal of fire debris of
Building 6 by $500,000. She summarized that in late March, Building 6 caught fire. The initial
debris removal was done, but asbestos and other contaminated building materials were found,
and the remaining concrete tower structures were unstable. We are eligible for a $200,000
grant from DTSC to offset the $500,000.
Vice Chair deHaan asked what the overall cost would be when complete; and if we were going
to hold Catellus responsible to pay back the cost. Ms. Little stated the amount to be
approximately $2 million by completion. She further explained that under their existing DDA,
Catellus is responsible for the demolition. There has been discussion between Catellus and the
City regarding what their actual obligation for cost is beyond just the regular demolition, which
will not be resolved until there is another amendment to their DDA.
Ms. Little also stated that the City Attorney's office has looked into whether we could put a lien
on the property so that it couldn't transfer without this obligation. There is no way around it,
however, as the language of the DDA specifies that we have to deliver the property to them
clear of liens or encumbrances.
Member Matarrese asked how quickly, after the $500,000 is allocated, will the demolition be
completed. Ms. Little stated that it would be done immediately, and that the daily cost of
security will cease also. Member Matarrese stated that the Catellus DA clearly says that
Catellus is responsible for demolishing this building. Since we demolished it for them, we need
to assign this cost to them. Whatever the vehicle is we need to present it to Catellus.
Member Gilmore asked what the modification to the ARRA budget is and if there are things we
are not going to be able to do because of this $500,000 modification. Ms. Little explained that
there is no line item where these funds could be taken from, so staff proposed this would come
back to the ARRA in a budget adjustment. The funds would come out of the ARRA's cash
balance, rather than what is usually referred to as a fund balance.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-10-07,3,"Member Matarrese motioned to approve the allocation of the $500,000 to complete the
demolition, and added that the entire cost of the demolition be assigned to Catellus.
Member Gilmore seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes:
Ayes: 5, Noes: o, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of September 3rd Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese said that the highlight of the meeting was an update and discussion on Site
1, the far northwest end of the wildlife refuge and lower part of Northwest Territories. The Navy
presentation refreshed the RAB on boundaries and milestones, the Navy's containment
preference to use an engineered four-foot soil cover, and their path forward which included a
timeline to Record of Decision (ROD) and remedial action to begin in December of 2010. The
RAB's discussion mostly challenged the assessment of that contamination - the fact that the
sample site data was old and inadequate. Member Matarrese stated that discussions at the
meetings have been heated and required a facilitator. There are people knowledgeable enough
to ask very technical questions and the bottom line is that no one is satisfied with the Navy's
proposal to cap it with four feet of soil. Member Matarrese was not able to attend the October 1
RAB meeting. The next meeting is Nov. 5.
Member Tam asked what the Navy plans to do with the feedback and their plans to go forward
with capping, even to our objection. Member Matarrese explained that the Navy was supposed
to have a final ROD by September 17th, but does not know if it has been published. The Navy is
also supposed to go through the pre-design work this December of whatever solution there
might be. ARRA's letter to the Navy stating the objection to the soil capping was also copied to
the Congressional delegation, which may garner a little more attention to slow this process
down and get a different resolution. Member Matarrese also complimented the ARRA's
environmental consultant, Dr. Peter Russell, for the informative summaries of the RAB meetings
which he provides to the ARRA.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:55 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-10-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-11-04,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.
2-A
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 7, , 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Vice
Chair deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of October 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese did not attend the Oct. 1 meeting, but received a comprehensive listing
(Alameda Point Site/Area Description) of Alameda Point IR Sites by name, by number, historic
use, current contamination status and future reuse. He asked that this list be distributed to
other boardmembers. The next RAB meeting is tomorrow, 11/5.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-11-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2009-12-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
of the ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 - 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Boardmembers deHaan, Matarrese, Gilmore, Tam and
Chair Johnson - 5.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR (54956.8):
Property:
Alameda Point
Negotiating parties:
ARRA and SunCal
Under negotiation:
Price and Terms
The ARRA Board provided instruction to the Real Property Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the Special Meeting at 7:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Itura Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 2, 2009",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-12-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 12:54 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 December 2, 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of December 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the December 7 RAB meeting, including that he
received a preliminary report from Derek Robinson of the Navy stating that the large object
in
the Sea Plane Lagoon is a concrete block with pier material, not hazardous waste. Member
Matarrese requested that the ARRA write a letter to the Navy to remove the concrete block.
Member deHaan asked if radiation was found on that piece. Member Matarrese replied that it is
unknown and a primary reason why it should be removed. Member Matarrese also discussed
that the Navy wants to leave the radium contaminated sewer line in place under building 400,
stating that removing it would cause the structure to be unsound. Member Matarrese, along
with RAB members insist that the sewer line has to be removed. Another important point
discussed was that the University of Florida and Purdue University received a large DOD grant
to conduct remediation development studies; this grant represents several hundreds of
thousands of dollars and put Alameda Point remediation on the map.
Chair Johnson agreed that the ARRA send a letter to the Navy regarding the two key items:
concrete block removal, and contaminated sewer line removal.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed looking at the option of filling the area in order to bring back the
shoreline. Chair Johnson and Member Matarrese agreed, stating that if the Seaplane Lagoon is
eventually going to be a Marina, and boating activities will be taking place there, it needs to be
cleared out.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
02-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-01-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese discussed the visit to El Toro and Hamilton bases, particularly that the City
of Irvine established a local development corporation to develop the Great Park. Member
Matarrese would like to put an item on a future ARRA agenda to evaluate that particular option
to see if it has utility for the ARRA or successor to the ARRA. He stated that Hamilton is farther
along than most other bases - there are lots of houses; 10 hangars in use, eight of which have
been rehabbed for public and private, with two hangars remaining in the Coast Guard. Member
Matarrese recommends looking for potential military use for the hangars at Alameda Point. He
stated that the most important and striking feature of Hamilton was that they were taking the
runways and returning them to wetlands. Member Matarrese discussed that a wetlands option
for the west end of Alameda Point might be a superior option to bolster the shoreline with an
engineering solution. The wetlands are a carbon sink, and there may be future carbon credits; it
filters runoff, provide better habitat for the environment and is a superior buffer to storm or wave
action because it doesn't require maintenance.
Vice Chair deHaan discussed that some of the dredging from the Port of Oakland was used for
establishing that wetlands. Member Matarrese added that levies were built as well. Vice Chair
deHaan stated that getting ""tipping fees' is extremely important to jumpstart this type of
operation.
Chair Johnson liked the idea of wetland restoration. Member Matarrese reiterated that the
ARRA remain insistent that the Navy scoop and remove Sites 1 and 2.
Member Matarrese stated that there was concern expressed by two members of the RAB (one
representative from the EPA and one from the Audubon Society) of rumors that the Bay Trail
was in jeopardy, either from the Wildlife or the VA. Member Matarrese would like to find the
source to the rumor to see if it has any merit.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 1:05 a.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-01-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-02-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:15 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 January 6, 2009.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
deHaan and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of January 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the January 7 RAB meeting, including a report of
Site OU-2C which has a contaminated discharge line under a slab in Bldg. 400. The RAB
recommends it be removed, but the Navy is citing potential compromise to the structural
integrity of building. The second highlight was a report on the block of cement in the seaplane
lagoon, to which the Navy made no comment. Member Matarrese would like a presentation and
technical summary from the Navy of cleanup activities and costs, including dollar figures,
completed to date. Member Matarrese stated that it is good for the community to understand
that remediation is an ongoing process. He will attend the next RAB meeting tomorrow (2/4).
Member Gilmore asked if it was requested of the Navy to substantiate their claim about the
structural integrity of Bldg. 400. Member Matarrese replied that a letter was sent to them with
that request.
Richard Bangert, speaker, supported the suggestion made by Member Matarrese calling for a
public presentation of the clean up activities at the base. He agreed that such a presentation
would benefit the community at large. He discussed the Record of Decision (ROD) document
for Site 1, explaining that it comprises 43,000 pages of data, emphasizing the need for the
community to have a deep understanding of the clean-up efforts. Mr. Bangert also
recommended that the regulatory agencies who oversee the clean-up be featured in the
presentation.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
03-03-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-02-03,2,"Chair Johnson agreed with Mr. Bangert that the regulatory agencies, including the Department
of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
Water board should participate in the presentation.
Chair Johnson further stated that the Board supports Member Matarrese's recommendation for
a public presentation regarding the remediation activities at Alameda Point.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were several speakers. Jean Sweeney suggested a before and after"" powerpoint
presentation of the clean-up sites.
Jim Sweeney agreed with Richard Bangert and Member Matarrese about a presentation to the
public. Mr. Sweeney encourages educating the public about remediation, the plan, and what
can be done realistically at Alameda Point.
Gretchen Lipow - attends RAB meetings, was impressed with the bright, talented members and
how they interact with the agencies. Ms. Lipow invites the public to observe these meetings,
stating that the group looks out for the communities' welfare.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Vice Chair deHaan discussed the Special Election of Feb 2nd regarding Measure B. There were
14,000 votes cast - 85% NO and 15% YES.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:31 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
June Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-02-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-03-03,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for
the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of February 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report
on remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive
contaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites
along the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater
treatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion
regarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and
that meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site
inspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side
of the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the
RAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA
will have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the
EPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the
Mastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special
ARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
04-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-03-03,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speakers
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense
Communities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in
various sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including
base conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off
than Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural
conversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member
Matarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their
experts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's
involvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host
committee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The
anticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC
accepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC
is interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the
different elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a
good case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.
Member Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which
help communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's
initiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.
Member Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant
replied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the
Charter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.
Member Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure
Island. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very
brief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing
official has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and
provisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked
through with developer as well.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-03-03.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:11 p.m. with Member Matarrese 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 March 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Third Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems,
Inc., Increasing the Budget by $60,000 to Provide Ongoing Negotiation Support for
the Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Gilmore, seconded by
Member Tam and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of March 1 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese discussed the highlights of the February 4 RAB meeting, including a report
on remediation and field work: The Navy is continuing to dig up and remove radioactive
contaminated storm drain lines from Bldg. 5, there is active groundwater treatments at two sites
along the Oakland inner harbor, north of Pier 1; and a petroleum contaminated groundwater
treatment recovery operation near the Atlantic avenue entrance. There was discussion
regarding issues relative to the disturbance of nesting of migratory birds at the Bay Trail, and
that meetings with the Fish & Wildlife Service have been scheduled. There are expanded site
inspections along the south east portions of Alameda Point to Hangar Row, on the western side
of the lagoon. Lastly, there was discussion on RAB's purpose and processes governing the
RAB, and how well the RAB communicates to the general public about clean-up efforts. ARRA
will have a meeting on May 6 to promote and highlight clean-up work. Regulators from the
EPA, DTSC, and Water Board will attend. The meeting is scheduled on May 6, 2010 at the
Mastick Senior Center. The RAB will hold their regular meeting at 6:00 p.m., and the Special
ARRA meeting will follow at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
05-06-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-04-06,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
No speakers
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese said that he and Chair Johnson attended the Association of Defense
Communities (ADC) conference in Feb in Albuquerque, NM. He stated that they participated in
various sessions and will prepare notes highlighting topics discussed in the sessions, including
base conversion stories and reuse of former military bases that were better, similar, or worse off
than Alameda Point. Regarding the base conversion and reuse, the spectrum ran from rural
conversion of an army weapons depot in Kansas, to a small village in Illinois. Member
Matarrese stated that there were a lot of contacts and exposure to all branches of service, their
experts and their experience, including the Director of the Fort Ord Reuse Authority.
Ann Marie Gallant, Interim Executive Director, expressed that she was pleased with the ARRA's
involvement in ADC and that she, along with executive staff, was invited to sit on the host
committee to plan the Annual ADC Conference taking place in San Francisco this year. The
anticipation is that there will be more than 1000 people in attendance. She stated that the ADC
accepted the ARRA's invitation to host an event at Alameda Point. She also said that the ADC
is interested in having the ARRA do a forum on the base and its history, including all the
different elements and components on remediation, phase-out issues, and that it would be a
good case study in terms of how they can learn some lessons.
Member Matarrese discussed two key items: 1) legislation on defense authorization bill, which
help communities grapple with the cost of closed bases, and 2) the new Undersecretary's
initiative to deal with green approaches, sustainability, and alternative energy sources.
Member Gilmore asked what the dates for the ADC Annual Conference were. Ms. Gallant
replied that it was early August, the 8th thru 11th. Member Tam reminded the Board of the
Charter provision to make a conscious effort to go dark in August.
Member Tam also asked if there was information on the status of conveyance of Treasure
Island. Jennifer Ott, Deputy Executive Director, spoke with the Project Manager of the Treasure
Island Development Authority (TIDA) and explained that TIDA was able to hammer out a very
brief term sheet, very similar to Alameda; and that now they are working on details. Nothing
official has been presented and no funds have exchanged hands. Because of the economy and
provisions of that agreement, additional density (more units) on Treasure Island will be worked
through with developer as well.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:22 p.m. by Member Matarrese.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-05-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Thursday, May 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:42 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:40 p.m.)
2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
2-A. Alameda Point Environmental Update - Presentation by the Navy and Regulatory
Agencies.
Vice Chair deHaan introduced Jennifer Ott, Deputy City Manager, to open the presentation. Ms.
Ott gave an overview on what will be presented: a summary of the environmental program, the
accomplishments that have been made to date, funds that have been expended by the Navy to
date, as well as some of the economic development impacts of the process. The presenters
were Derek Robinson of the Navy, Anna-Marie Cook of the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and Dot Lofstrom of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).
After the presentation, the Board discussed key issues with the presenters.
Vice Chair deHaan commented on the long process and gave a brief background on the
remediation efforts. He thanked the community and past chairs for their continued support.
Member Tam expressed her appreciation for the update and the amount of work & effort that
goes into the clean up. She asked how the funds are controlled and administered, who they
flow through given the various jurisdictions involved (i.e., is the funding centralized through the
BRAC and then through the other agencies) and how they are allocated through congressional
authorizations.
Derek Robinson explained that he will get clarification on the funding process and will report the
information back to Member Tam. He also clarified that the Navy's focus is not on recouping
the funds spent in the clean-up. Vice Chair deHaan discussed the change of philosophy
regarding the remediation of Alameda Point. He clarified that the clean-up was under the
complete control of the Navy, and that in 2000, the Navy allowed the developer to consider
privatized clean-up, and then it went back under the control of the Navy.
Member Matarrese asked for more clarification about the process after a parcel is determined to
be cleaned to the level at which it was assigned - how notification, information and
documentation is given to the next successor agency in order for them to continue the work. Dot
Lofstrom explained that there is an official administrative record that the Navy maintains and
information & documentation will always be in the Information Repository. In addition, there is
an informal repository that DTSC is maintaining through their Envirostore Database. There is a
Agenda Item #2-A
CC/ARRA/CIC
06-01-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-05-06,2,"certification process after a parcel has been cleaned. Ann Marie Cook of EPA further explained
this process: Once a site has reached a point where it is considered meeting the goals set for it
to be cleaned, the Navy prepares a ""Remedial Action Completion Report' and the EPA, because
it is a Superfund site, is required to make the determination that all clean-up action necessary
has been completed. The Navy then drafts a Finding of Suitability report to transfer that
property.
Member Gilmore asked for the status of the transfer process of cleaned VA lands and whether
or not the Navy and the VA have reached a basic deal. Jennifer Ott explained that the transfer
is moving forward, but awaiting approval from the administration to move forward. She stated
that at this time, there are no details of a basic deal, but she will keep the Board updated on any
further developments.
Vice Chair deHaan asked about the status of remediation of the Seaplane Lagoon. Mr.
Robinson stated that they are currently in Stage 1, which includes removing large debris piles
on the north side, and that Stage 2 will include remediating soils from the outlet of the storm
drain systems. Construction activities will start in Sep./Oct. 2010. Vice Chair deHaan also
asked about Site 2 wetlands. He was concerned that the estimated cost of clean-up for Site 2
was approximately $100 million. Mr. Robinson stated that number seems high, and is more
likely $20 million - but will get the correct information to report back to the Board.
There were three speakers: Jim Sweeney discussed the potential adaptive reuse of Building 5.
According to Ann Marie Cook, Building 5 is one million square feet, is 65 feet tall, and qualifies
as a historical building. She managed to secure funding from an EPA pilot program and they
are looking at costs associated with reusing portions of the building and demolishing other
portions. She will be able to provide an update in three months, with a final report in about
seven months.
Irene Dieter, speaking on behalf of community, expressed her concern about lack of information
and public relations to the community about all the remediation efforts and other activities
regarding Alameda Point. Ms. Ott reiterated that there are monthly RAB and ARRA meetings,
as well as notices on the City and Alameda Point websites.
The third speaker, Maria Hargrove, expressed concern about traffic and congestion in and out
of Alameda Point. Chair Johnson informed Ms. Hargrove that the Planning Board meeting on
Monday, May 10, will discuss traffic issues and present a plan.
Chair Johnson thanked all the presenters for coming together to coordinate this Special
Meeting, and for the important information they provided in their presentation. She reiterated to
the public how important the information provided by these agencies is in helping the community
understand all the activity and efforts in cleaning up Alameda Point.
3.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 9:02 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Jana Glidden
Trma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-05-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-07-07,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:21 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. Responses to Questions Posed by the ARRA Board at the May 6th, 2010 Special ARRA
Meeting Regarding the United States Navy's Environmental Program at Alameda Point.
Member Gilmore requested additional information regarding the VA transfer and related
agreement in response to the May 25, 2010 letter from the Navy which addressed the questions
from the May 6th meeting. Staff stated that the information will be provided at the next ARRA
meeting.
The Consent Calendar was motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member
Matarrese and passed by the following voice votes: Ayes: 5, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 0
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative - Highlights of June 3 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese gave an overview of the June 3rd RAB meeting. He discussed the summary
of the radiological surveys and clean ups that have been done at Fed sites 1 and 2. He also
discussed the Bldg. 5 storm drain which was removed because of radium contamination, and
that additional contamination was found in other storm drains; and site 17 sediment sampling of
the seaplane lagoon. Member Matarrese stated that there is a new schedule of evaluation and
remediation that runs from Aug thru Nov of 2010.
Member Matarrese discussed two commentary papers prepared by RAB member and physical
engineer, George Humphreys. One of the papers was on basewide radiological contamination,
and the other on site 25 ground water plume above the FISC near Coast Guard Housing,
Tinker-Stargell extension.
There is a Navy-sponsored tour of the sites on Saturday, July 17 from 9-11:00 a.m. Interested
parties can go to the BRAC website to sign up.
Agenda Item #2-A
ARRA
09-01-2010",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-07-07,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
One speaker, Jon Spangler, discussed clean-up of Alameda Point. He inquired what will happen
with everything that is above-ground at Alameda Point, the crumbling infrastructure, buildings
that were built with toxic materials, and contaminated buildings. He asked who will pay for
remediation and up-keep if SunCal's contract is not renewed.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Considering the investigatory report against Councilmember Tam, Vice-Chair deHaan offered to
attend the League of California Cities meeting as the alternate representative for the City of
Alameda. He asked if this issue should be agendized for the next regular Council meeting.
The General Counsel clarified that because Vice Chair deHaan is already the alternate, no
official action is required, but if the Board would like to take a vote, this cannot happen tonight
and would have to be at another meeting. Member Matarrese concurred with Vice-Chair
deHaan and requested this issue be agendized for the next council meeting.
7. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 7:34 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-07-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:03 p.m. with Vice Chair deHaan presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Frank Matarrese
Boardmember Marie Gilmore
Vice Chair Doug deHaan
Absent:
Chair Beverly Johnson (arrived at 8:00 p.m.)
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 7, 2010.
2-B. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 001 Amending the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting.
2-C. Approve a Fourth Amendment to Agreement with Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.,
Increasing the Budget by $25,000 for Providing Negotiation Support for the
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
Member Tam asked to pull Item 2-C, and moved to approve the balance of the Consent
Calendar. Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by following voice vote
- Ayes: 4.
Member Tam requested more clarification on the amount of the EPS contract amendment and
asked if SunCal was consulted on the overage, to which the Deputy City Manager,
Development Services, responded in the affirmative, explaining that the Negotiating Cost
Ledger has been made available to SunCal, and all invoices are included in the ledger.
Member Tam asked what the ENA obligations are if the budget or scope is exceeded for
consultant contracts. The Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that
contracts are separate from the SunCal Cost Recovery account, and the amount of the EPS
contract has not exceeded any Cost Recovery provisions under the ENA.
Member Tam asked what the total budget was for EPS under the Cost Recovery Account, to
which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded that the total budget for the
quarter was approximately $372,000 for all consultants. Based on this clarification, Member
Tam stated she will abstain from this item.
Member Gilmore asked if there are sufficient funds in the Cost Recovery account to cover the
overage of the EPS contract amendment, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development
Services, responded in the affirmative.
Member Gilmore asked if there is a mechanism in place if charges are disputed, to which the
Deputy City Manager, Development Services, responded in the affirmative.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,2,"Member Matarrese moved for approval of Item 2-C. Vice Chair deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by the following voice votes: Ayes: 3, Noes: 0, Abstentions: 1
(Tam)
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Adopt a Resolution Supporting the United States Navy's Transfer of 549 Acres of the
Former Naval Air Station in the City of Alameda to the United States Department of
Veterans Affairs for the Development of an Out-Patient Clinic and Columbarium.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services clarified that the staff report combines an
information piece which addresses the VA-NAVY deal, and requires no action; and a
'recommendation' portion to adopt a resolution in support of property transfer to the VA.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services summarized the background of the proposed
VA project and property transfer.
Member Tam inquired if it was necessary that the resolution exclude the 9.7 acres of the Least
Tern colony, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services explained that the 9.7
acres is included, along with the buffer zone surrounding the Wildlife Refuge, which is more
than half of the 549 acres.
The Deputy City Manager, Development Services introduced Larry Jaynes, Capital Asset
Manager from the Department of Veteran Affairs. Mr. Jaynes gave a brief presentation of the
status and projected timeline of the VA project.
Speakers: Proponents: Mark Chandler, Commissioner of the Alameda County Veterans Affairs
Commission; Alex McElree, Operation Dignity; Aidan Barry.
Opponents: Gary Bard; Leora Feeney, Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge (FAWR)
Committee; Ron Barklow; Cindy Margulis; Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon; Jean
Sweeney; Jon Spangler; Jim Sweeney; Adam Gillitt; William Smith, Sierra Club; Joyce Larrick,
FAWR; Nancy Hird
Chair Johnson inquired if there is a specific location identified in the resolution for the VA
project, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the negative,
further explaining that the 549 acres are part of a formal request that includes the specific
property.
Vice Chair deHaan clarified that there was discussion by the Board that the old Phase 3, the
area near the USS Hornet, is a feasible location for the VA project, but there are still options to
be pursued.
Member Tam inquired whether this Fed to Fed transfer from the Navy to the VA is going to
happen irrespective of whether or not the Board endorse it or oppose it, to which the Deputy
City Manager, Development Services responded that there is a process that has to be followed
in order for the Fed-to-Fed transfer to occur, which includes NEPA and a Section 7
Consultation. At this time, there are no guarantees that the process will be completed, but the
assumption is that once the process is complete, the transfer will occur.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,3,"Member Tam brought attention to the alternative resolution from the Golden Gate Audubon
Society which includes recognition that there should be protection for the Least Terns, based on
a biological opinion issued by the US Fish and Wildlife.
Member Gilmore inquired why the VA was requesting 549 acres when they only require
approximately 100 acres for their project, to which Mr. Jaynes replied that the Navy stated the
transfer would be the 549 acres or nothing. Mr. Jaynes further explained that it is not part of the
VA's mission to manage that portion of property, so the VA is planning to have a separate
agreement with the USF&W to oversee the remaining 449 acres, just as the Navy has the same
agreement with them right now; the funding will come from the VA instead of the Navy.
Member Matarrese inquired if the property was transferred to the ARRA, could the ARRA then
dispose of it to the VA, to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in
the affirmative. Mr. Jaynes expressed that there may be stumbling blocks without proceeding
with the BRAC process.
Member Matarrese inquired whether the city will be able to participate in the VA project process,
to which the Deputy City Manager, Development Services responded in the affirmative.
Member Gilmore requested more details from the VA regarding what their plans are with USFW,
and the proposed annual budget, so that it does not become an afterthought.
Member Tam suggested adding the language from the Golden Gate Audubon Society regarding
the protection of the Least Tern colony to the ARRA Resolution.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-A, with a revision to the Resolution
adding ""Whereas, the City of Alameda will continue to prioritize the protection and
conservation of the California Least Tern in its planning documents and decisions"".
Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by a unanimous voice vote: 5
Ayes.
3-B. Presentation: Alameda Point - 'Going Forward'.
The Interim City Manager announced that Item 3-C will be combined with 3-B into a single
presentation. The presentation focused on a planning and assessment model for a going-
forward approach for the development of Alameda Point. The Interim City Manager
emphasized that this model is not a development plan, not a land use plan, or anything that
requires actual legislative decision, it is a recommendation and topic for discussion. The
presentation included seven key components of this approach: lessons learned, new structure,
strategic alliances, development delivery systems, asset management police application,
financial resources, and implementation schedule.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired who will comprise the team for this model approach, to which the
Interim City Manager responded that familiar staff members, including the Deputy City Manager,
Development Services; the Planning Services Manager, Public Works Director; and various
consultants, will comprise the team.
Speakers: Adam Gillitt, Tony Daysog, Jean Sweeney, Jon Spangler, Alex McElree, Richard
Bangert, Nancy Hird, Doug Biggs, Gretchen Lipow.
Vice Chair deHaan remarked that the timeline for this plan is very aggressive, and suggested
compressing the timeline. The Interim City Manager clarified that the ambitious timeline doesn't",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,4,"mean the base is going to be completed in 15 months, rather, the 15 months timeline is for
planning an assessment. The Board will have an opportunity to augment the timeline in more
detail after subsequent discussions and at subsequent meetings.
Member Matarrese stated that on strategic alliances, the regulators should be recognized, the
EPA & DTSC for clean-up, and USF&W for the environmental. Regarding policy questions,
Member Matarrese also expects certain questions to resurface, i.e., finances and how tax
increment might be used, where the shortfalls are, how they will be backfilled, and where there
are opportunities for early transfer for land that has already been cleaned up. Member
Matarrese also suggested looking at the potential for having a citywide Project Labor Agreement
(PLA) . There also needs to be discussion about jobs-housing balance, to give an opportunity
for public to weigh in on it. Member Matarrese remarked on the notion of using ""other peoples
money"", i.e., funds from the Federal Government and MTC, as these funds could add up.
Member Gilmore echoed Member Matarrese's comments and requested to see a primer of what
the lease environment looks like in the Bay Area, regarding the asset management application.
If the ARRA is renegotiating leases, it would be good to know realistically what the competition
is, in order to have a more realistic expectation in terms of putting in more capital into a building
or not.
In terms of leasing strategy, Member Tam inquired whether or not there is opportunity to adjust
the restriction in the LIFOC which says the Navy can give minimal notice to terminate a tenant,
recommending that it is something that should be pursued.
There was discussion about the amount of documents that have been produced and compiled
through the years, and where they are made available to the public on the City and Alameda
Point websites. The Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on implementing a new
Alameda Point website which will focus strictly on Alameda Point and the development project
going forward.
3-C. Presentation: Citywide Asset Management Strategy - Alameda Point Application.
(This item was combined with 3-B)
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)
representative
- Highlights of August 5 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese stated that there were a number of interesting documents that were
presented at the August RAB meeting, including a report on IR Site 35, which is action sites that
are in the very center of the property being transferred to the ARRA; a presentation on
groundwater remediation at OU-2A, which discussed clean up; and communications from the
RAB to the Navy. Member Matarrese remarked that the most interesting handout was an
abstract done in concert with the Navy, EPA, Shaw Group (the contractor) and federal money
from a SERDP grant through the University of Florida, Gainesville. The abstract depicts the
results of a method of clean up of TCE (trichloroethene), Plume 4-1. Member Matarrese stated
that this should be of interest to Alameda because it is being published in a scientific journal, it
brings focus on what is going on at Alameda Point, and creates notoriety on methods that could
be used at other bases. Handouts were provided to the Clerk for copies to be made and
distributed.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-09-01,5,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
7.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 10:03 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Airan Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-09-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:10 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 September 1, 2010.
2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for Jim Bustos Plumbing, Inc., Building
612, at Alameda Point.
2-C. Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with Russell
Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $140,000 to the Budget.
2-D. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease for NRC Environmental Services, Inc.
Building 616 and Yard D-13, at Alameda Point.
Vice Chair deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of September 2 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese was not able to attend the Sept. 2 meeting but received materials regarding
remediation activity in progress with a new technology, and a brief report on the University of
Florida study of the remediation technique.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Presentation on ""Going Forward"" Community Forums for Alameda Point",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,2,"The Planning Services Manager gave an oral presentation on the schedule of the Alameda
Point Community Forums, an initial eight month public outreach effort of the first phase of
planning, which would end in June 2011 and restart the environmental review process. The
Planning Services Manager explained that while the City of Alameda is doing a CEQA
document EIR, the Navy will be doing a NEPA document. The Navy process won't start until
there is a project description or general description of the City's plan. The goal is eight months.
The eight-month schedule starts with a series of community outreach efforts, including
community workshops and internet outreach. The tentative schedule of the first three meetings
is: November 9 at the Grand Pavilion, November 18 at Mastick, and December 8 in west
Alameda. These workshops and key components of each meeting will be consistent from
meeting to meeting.
The Planning Services Manager summarized the six key areas as noted in the staff report: 1)
Community Facilities, 2) Land Use Mix, 3) Streets, Parks, and Open Space, 4) Transportation
Access, 5) Architectural Character and Building Types, and 6) Historic Character and Adaptive
Reuse.
There are plans for a Tenant Forum in the spring focused on economic development strategy, a
Developer and Business Forum, and discussions with each of the Boards and Commissions. A
summary will be presented to the ARRA Board in March 2011, and a project description in June
2011.
Member Gilmore requested an overview of where Alameda and the Bay Area stand in the
commercial and industrial real estate market. The Interim City Manager discussed the
application of a citywide real estate management policy which will include the information
Member Gilmore requested about comparable leases.
Member Tam requested an evaluation of internal competition, i.e., Marina Village VS. Alameda
Point.
Member Matarrese discussed the commercialization and industrialization approach to
development at Alameda Point, stating that the markets already out there are not the typical
suburban business park, not the type of businesses that would go into Marina Village, i.e., NRC
and supporting industries, Spirits Alley, the maritime industry. Member Matarrese also
discussed the jobs housing, and that job creation should drive it, stating that Alameda Point will
never be the rest of Alameda and probably shouldn't be, because it is industrial. Alameda Point
should reflect what it was and people will look at it in a different way.
Vice Chair deHaan concurred with Member Matarrese, stating that Alameda Point has a
different architectural design and that the development should maximize the unique venue out
there, and that folks should not get caught up in that it has to look like the rest of Alameda.
Member Gilmore recommended evaluating and targeting the types of businesses and industries
that would value the asset of Alameda's own electric utility.
Member Tam inquired a status report on communications with the Navy and if they were aware
of the ""Going Forward"" plan, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services
responded in the affirmative, stating that staff met with the Navy last week. The Navy produced
conveyance objectives and stated that they want to help facilitate conveyance and interim
economic development. The Interim City Manager stated that she will meet with the Navy's top
management every 90 days for a status update.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,3,"Member Tam inquired if there was opportunity for Alameda to get funding for the EIR process.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that
staff has discussed funding possibilities with the Navy. There are some technical issues as the
Navy has a contract for their NEPA process, and the City has a CEQA contract, but it may be
possible to combine the processes so that it is cost efficient.
Member Tam inquired if there are synergies between the sister federal agencies (Lawrence
Berkeley Lab is with the Dept. of Energy, and the Veterans Administration has close ties with
Navy). The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that, regarding the VA, the
Navy understands that there has to be coordination to the extent that City staff can work with
the VA to leverage their infrastructure and develop that relationship, not just in terms of
regulatory process, but also with actual physical improvements and infrastructure. With regards
to the Lawrence Berkeley Lab's requests for proposals for land to host their second campus, the
City is prepared to submit a proposal in coordination with the Navy.
The Interim City Manager added that the City is prepared to respond to the Lawrence Berkeley
Lab RFP process with a very competitive proposal. There are opportunities to have strategic
alliances as a result of the DOE and the Navy that makes Alameda Point uniquely competitive.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff will be providing the Board
with updates at the monthly ARRA meetings.
Vice Chair deHaan inquired if the Navy is willing to do phased conveyance. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that the Navy is exploring the boundaries, the pros
and cons of phased conveyance, and that the Navy is open and listening to ideas.
There was discussion from the Board about the management of the utilities at Alameda Point
and whether there was a formal decision made about it. The Assistant General Counsel -
ARRA stated that there has never been a plan that the City would operate any of the utilities at
Alameda Point other than the electric utility.
Member Matarrese requested that the facts of this matter be brought back to the Board.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Matarrese attended the liaison committee meeting between AC Transit and the City
and discussed the series of cuts, including reduction of services for Lines O, Line 51A, and Line
21, and the discontinuation of Line 851. He was most concerned about Line 31 (the only bus
service to the Alameda Point Collaborative and to west of Main St) which will be discontinued on
weekends. Member Matarrese requested that the City insist that Line 31 be continued on
weekends.
There was discussion by the Board of SunCal's involvement in the political arena.
Boardmembers expressed their dissatisfaction and displeasure, denouncing SunCal's efforts,
stating that the personal attacks on staff members and elected officials to influence any political
debate or election should not be tolerated.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-10-06,4,"9. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting was adjourned at 8:09 p.m. by Chair Johnson.
Respectfully submitted,
Itema Glidden
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-10-06.pdf
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
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,1,"UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The meeting convened at 7:01 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 November 3, 2010.
2-B. Approve a Waiver of License Fees for American Red Cross, Bay Area Chapter at Building
8.
Member Gilmore moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
3-A. Designate a Member of the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board to
Serve as the New Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Representative.
Vice Chair deHaan offered to serve as the RAB representative.
Member Gilmore moved for approval to appoint Vice Chair deHaan as the new RAB
representative. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5. Effective first RAB meeting in January 2011.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of November 4 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member Matarrese addressed three key points: 1) The Navy will be revamping the records
Repository, including all of the Records of Decision (ROD), environmental studies,
presentations, and information on the history of characterization; 2) there was a presentation on
the draft final site investigation of the Federal Parcel Transfer, the south west portion of the
base. The Navy is completing the surveying; 3) Member Matarrese would like Member deHaan
and staff to continue tracking Sites 1, 2, & 32 on the north west side. These sites are the most
vulnerable parts of the base in that they have high ground water, are susceptible to sloughing
off into the bay, and are replete with radium T26 contamination. Member Matarrese stated it is
important the City take a position that the Navy should not leave any detectable radiation on the
site.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,2,"5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
6-A. Alameda Point Community Forums Update.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a presentation and an overview of the
community forums. She provided a link to the workbook that people can participate in the going-
forward process: ww.alamedapoint-goingforward.com
Speakers: Philip Tribuzio, Henry Hernandez
6-B. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Board Composition: Options for New
Structure (continued from November 16, 2010).
The Interim City Manager provided a presentation to update the Board on the 'Going-Forward""
plan.
Speakers: Honora Murphy, John Knox White, Anne Spanier, John Spangler
There was confusion among the public regarding the topic of Item 6-B. Member Tam explained
that the confusion comes from the wording of the item. The item is an update of the Going-
Forward plan, and not a recommendation to change the ARRA Board Structure. Chair Johnson
further clarified that this item is not before the Board for a decision, and that the Interim City
Manager presented the item as an introduction of the concept, which the Board could either
pursue or abandon.
Member Gilmore expressed concern that there were advisory groups for Alameda Point that
were active for many years [Base Reuse Advisory Group (BRAG), Alameda Point Advisory
Commission (APAC)], but that they were ultimately dissolved by the ARRA. Member Gilmore's
concern was that expanding the ARRA Board meant putting important decisions in the hands of
non-electeds.
Vice Chair deHaan expressed concern that he didn't want his elected position to be undermined
by introducing a new structure or re-establishing an advisory group. It would be counter-
productive to the long-standing mechanisms currently in place.
Member Tam premised her statement by requesting that her comments be taken in the context
that she is giving her opinion, and not trying to develop consensus for direction. Member Tam
commented that the ARRA's amended bylaws and JPA included provisions to appoint an
advisory body, not a voting body. Member Tam suggested an approach that included the parks
and school districts (EBRPD and AUSD), the Peralta community; as they all have their own
governing boards. The representatives from each of these agencies would have accountability
and would foster democracy. Member Tam stated an expansion of the ARRA Board is
something that should not be pursued.
Member Gilmore and Vice Chair deHaan agreed with Member Tam and support the idea of
including other stakeholders.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2010-12-01,3,"The Interim City Manager suggested adding an element to the process -- a community forum for
principle stakeholders and other governmental agencies/bodies focused on government
regulations.
Member Tam requested that this issue be included as a future item where the Board can give
direction. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that it will be placed on the
February agenda.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Gilmore reminded staff that she requested a presentation regarding the commercial
real estate market as it exists.
Vice Chair deHaan stated that the ARRA should be involved in the City of Oakland's
discussions regarding the Notice of Preparation (NOP) of the Oakland A's stadium in Jack
London Square. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Vice Chair
deHaan that Alameda city planning staff is aware of the NOP and will be following it.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-12-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,1,"1
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:02 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chair Marie Gilmore
Boardmember Lena Tam
Boardmember Doug deHaan
Boardmember Beverly Johnson
Vice Chair Rob Bonta
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-001) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 1, 2010.
(*11-002) Approve a Waiver of License Fee for Michaan's Auctions for Use of Portions of
Building 20.
Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-A of the Consent Calendar. Member Tam
seconded the motion, which carried by voice vote - 4, Abstentions - 1 (Bonta).
Member deHaan moved for approval of Item 2-B of the Consent Calendar. Member 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.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-003) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of December 2, 2010 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan did not attend the December 2, 2010 RAB meeting and has no report.
Member deHaan will attend the next RAB meeting on January 6, 2011 and will provide a report
at the February ARRA meeting. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will also
attend the January 6th RAB meeting.
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
There were no speakers.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-004) Mayor Gilmore asked the Deputy City Manager - Development Services to provide an
update on the Lawrence Berkeley Lab (LBL) RFQ for a 2M square foot campus, with Alameda
Point in consideration. The RFQ was sent out on January 3 and is due March 4th. Staff and
a",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,2,"2
consultant team are working together to respond to the RFQ. Placeholders have been put on all
Council/ARRA agendas before the March due date in case policy direction is needed. The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services summarized the RFQ, stating that the initial
phase is for 500,000 sq. ft. of space. Staff is working closely with the Navy (property owners)
on policy issues that may need to be discussed with the Board. The short list will be in April.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services will discuss the developer solicitation
process on the 18th in response to the RFQ, and before the short list. Other bases have been
jump-started by large institutional user like LBL, it is a great catalyst and opportunity to get
Alameda Point started.
Member Johnson asked about the location and competitors. The Deputy City Manager
-
Development Services responded that the location was very specific: 20 - 25 minutes from
blackberry gate; and that the biggest competitor is LBL's own property at Richmond Gild
Station, 90 acres along the waterfront. The cities of Berkeley and Emeryville are also included.
Member deHaan inquired if LBL is looking for land site or adaptive reuse. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that since LBL needs state of the art R&D facilities,
they want to find new construction. In initial conversations, the area that stands out is the area
south of Atlantic. Construction would start in July 2013 in areas without cleanup issues. Chair
Gilmore requested the RFQ be posted on the City's website so that the Board can access it and
be prepared to get questions answered.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the Golden Gate Yacht Club and
Oracle Racing announced that the America's Cup #34 will be held in San Francisco in 2013. In
anticipation of the event, staff sent event organizers a letter reemphasizing the city's support for
the San Francisco bid, and where Alameda can be helpful, i.e., host supportive services on
Alameda Point for the America's Cup - hangars, ferries, potential economic benefit, strong
marine industry, sailing syndicates, and being involved in the planning process.
Member deHaan asked if the Board is taking the lead with regard to the community support
efforts, or if there is a separate professional organization taking the lead. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services replied that it has been a cooperative effort - specific
community members are involved in the maritime and sailing world and have the connections
that staff doesn't. There are shared ideas and support. The City and staff lends credibility as a
government entity to their interests.
The Acting City Manager discussed the website which was developed by a community member
who is connected to the sailing world and is leading the charge, working with the City for bigger
mobilization in support of America's Cup #34. The business community wants to get involved,
and a partnership of residents, business and the city could help bring some aspect of the event
to Alameda.
Member Bonta commented on the amazing efforts from the community, recognizing Jack
Boeger and Bob Naber. Member Bonta stated that he looks forward to working with staff and
the community to maximize this opportunity and realize the full potential economically and
otherwise.
Member Tam requested to be informed of any opportunities for the elected body to get involved.
Chair Gilmore requested that updates of the event be placed as a regular item on the ARRA
agenda.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-01-05,3,"3
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11-005) Referral from Chair Gilmore to change the order of the ARRA meetings.
Member Johnson moved to approve the referral to change the order of the ARRA
meetings. Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote 5.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
(11-006) Member Tam commented that with the emerging opportunities, the ARRA should focus
on reshaping its Going Forward process and be more ""shovel ready""- more prepared with
property, parcels, and infrastructure to maximize its competitiveness at Alameda Point.
Chair Gilmore requested a timeline of the Going Forward process so that the Board and the
public can makes comments and any changes necessary. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services stated that an update will be presented at the 2/2 ARRA meeting, and
the ARRA predevelopment budget would be presented at the 2/15 mid year budget adjustment.
Member deHaan asked if staff has interfaced with the new owners of Catellus, TPG Capital LP.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that the Economic Development
Director and City Manager were getting up to speed with the new partner. A designated project
manager is working with staff. TPG Capital will likely need to come to the Council/CIC because
they are changing the development entity in agreement with the CIC. The Deputy City Manager
- Development Services discussed that there will be a staff report, update, and presentation
from the new partner in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan inquired about the interview timeline for the Alameda Point RFQ consultants.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that there were two days of
interviews with four consultants: real estate economics, master planning, sustainable design
and green infrastructure consultants, and transportation consultants. Contracts will be
negotiated in January and will be brought back as part of the mid year budget adjustment to
demonstrate to the ARRA how the project will be paid for. There are also plans to come back
with community feedback in March.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-01-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,2,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,3,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,4,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-02-02,5,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-02-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:31 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-011) Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2011.
(*11-012) Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 49 Setting the Order of Business of the
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meetings.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
3.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-013) Endorse ""Going Forward"" Process and Schedule for Alameda Point Redevelopment.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services/project manager, summarized the Going
Forward process. The interdepartmental team includes the Planning Services Manager and Public
Works Director. The Going Forward process is a two-tier process: Tier 1 is developing a vision and
project description for Alameda Point through July 2011 to use as a basis to start the City's
environmental review process (CEQA); and the Navy for their NEPA process in terms of
conveyance. Tier 2 is the Entitlement process from July 2011- - July 2013, which has four major
entitlements: Specific Plan, Master Infrastructure Plan, a Conveyance Agreement, and State Lands
Exchange Agreement. A community-planning workbook was developed and provided online. The
workbook was used to facilitate several community workshops that were held. Staff will prepare a
summary report that will be presented at the March 2 ARRA meeting. A tenant forum is scheduled
next week. The next six months of the Going Forward process will focus on several efforts. The
first and biggest is the Master Planning effort, which will include the project management team and
a team of consultants: land use planning, economics, civil engineering, transportation,
environmental, sustainable infrastructure. There is also a plan to work with ARRA staff and PM
Realty on a long-term leasing strategy to leverage additional funding and create momentum for
longer term leases on buildings that will be remaining, as well as work with the Navy and State
Lands on joint proposed conveyance objectives and principles regarding land conveyance. There
will be a pro forma, and discussion of land value and structuring how the land is transferred from
the Navy.
Member Johnson inquired whether there is an ARRA agreement with PM Realty and the status of
an RFP for a property manager. The Acting City Attorney responded that there is a property
management agreement with PM Realty from 2004. Regarding the status of the RFP for a property
manager, the Deputy City Manager - Development Services replied that an RFP has not been done
yet, but staff will make it a priority as time permits.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,2,"Chair Gilmore reminded staff that she has asked for a real estate leasing primer from staff, and
would like this primer before a property manager RFP, because it will inform the RFP. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services replied that the leasing primer has been put in a draft scope
for an economics firm to help staff put together a presentation. The primer will be done as soon as
there is an economist on board.
The project management team is working with the Federal Government, Veteran's Administration,
on their project as a potential institutional user; as well as with the Alameda Point Collaborative
(APC) and Building Futures for Women and Children, consolidating their facilities to meet their
longer term needs, but on a smaller piece of land. The Public Works department will be
implementing a federal transportation administration grant for transportation improvement and
routes at Alameda Point.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services prepared a budget of the project, which will be
discussed further on 2/15 at the mid year adjustment.
The Planning Services Manager discussed the adopted general plan for Alameda Point.
Member Tam discussed the importance of engaging the school district, East Bay Regional Park
District (EBRPD), Peralta Community College District, as they were not included in the outreach.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that staff will be meeting with the
EBRPD tomorrow, and will include these agencies in the outreach.
Vice Chair Bonta supports moving forward with the Going Forward process, as the plan provides
specificity and focus, with flexibility - an important balance. Member Johnson and Chair Gilmore
also support moving forward. Chair Gilmore emphasized the importance of flexibility. She stated
that the process and plan couldn't be so rigid that opportunities are missed.
Speakers: Doug Biggs, Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Helen Sause, Carol Gottstein, Nancy Hird,
Gretchen Lipow, Karen Bey.
Member deHaan moved to approve endorsing the Alameda Point ""Going Forward"" Process.
Member Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(11-014) Provide Direction on Key Aspects of Response to Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory's Request for Qualifications for a Second Campus at Alameda Point and Approve
Issuance of Request for Qualifications for Developers.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave an overview on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Lab (LBNL) RFQ for a second campus. The interdepartmental team lead by the Deputy
City Manager - Development Services, includes the Public Works Director (Matt Naclerio), Planning
Services Manager (Andrew Thomas), Alameda Municipal Power General Manager (Girish
Balachandran), and Economic Development Manager (Eric Fonstein). The team has prepared the
first draft of the response, identified key aspects and would like policy direction on four key points to
finalize a competitive response: 1) Site Location, 2) Planning Guidelines 3) Financial Incentives 4)
Developer RFQ.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed the Next Steps and timeline for the
decision-making process and selection of development team.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,3,"Chair Gilmore inquired where the developer's economic incentive would come from. The Deputy
City Manager - Development Services discussed initial ideas, including fee development and
private development to land adjacent, and that it was structured in the RFQ to ask each of
developers to put forth recommendations.
Member Johnson commented that the zero cost idea is worth it to have LBNL at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson stated that the project should have a defined, tight design and review process.
The Planning Services Manager discussed various ways to structure a design and review process
that would give the community assurance of high quality design buildings that would fit within the
design expectations of the city and minimize the time and energy LBNL would have to spend in a
normal design and review process.
Member Tam discussed LBNL's expectation that the ARRA will engage an entity with appropriate
development experience. Member Tam inquired whether LBNL could be part of the developer
evaluation process so that there is an even playing field with everyone else. The Deputy City
Manager - Development Services explained that LBNL clearly stated that a developer team was
not required in the initial process but that the project team would check to see if LBNL would like to
weigh in on the evaluation so that the ARRA doesn't end up with a partner that could be of a
disadvantage.
Speakers: Rob Ratto, Elizabeth Greene, Seth Hamalian, Phil Owen, Karen Bey, Nancy Hird.
Vice Chair Bonta asked for clarification on the $14M in benefits to the city, inquired about the time
period and the assumptions. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the
$14M is based on an economic impact study done for the second campus, and contemplates 800
jobs in the first phase. The economic development manager stated that the study is based on
facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville, and how much revenue and impacts there were on those
host communities. Since that study was done, the LBNL's conception of the second base initial
phase has grown much larger, as it would be consolidating not just those two facilities, but also the
Oakland & Berkeley facilities. Vice Chair Bonta clarified that the ARRA would be proposing a no-
cost long-term lease and an option to buy at no cost. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services confirmed that when the City receives the land from the Navy, it would then be transferred
to LBNL. The Acting General Counsel explained that the ARRA has a Lease in Furtherance of
Conveyance (LIFOC) so will be providing a sublease, and when title to the property is received, it
will be title going to LBNL.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired whether there is a site that staff determined to be second best, and what
were the drawbacks as compared to the preferred site. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services explained that there are some outstanding leaseholds the project team felt would create
some uncertainty, so the preferred site had the least number of issues. The Planning Services
Manager stated that both sites are great and the ARRA is open to discussing variations of the sites.
Vice Chair Bonta suggested the ARRA be more bold to attract LBNL by offering to provide a menu
of other options and be aggressive in financial incentives and no-cost incentives, AMP discount,
reduced planning fees, and tax rebates. Member Johnson agrees and supports making that part of
the initial proposal so that it is more attractive and highly competitive.
Member Tam inquired if LBNL's existing facilities in Walnut Creek and Emeryville were able to
generate the $14M tertiary economic benefit from those communities. The Economic Development
manager explained that the analysis by CBRE looked at direct and indirect spending and the
tertiary, multiplier effect of payrolls, of employee spending; including spending in restaurants,
shopping, and sales tax.
The Board discussed the existing amenities on Alameda Point, Webster Street, and Marina Village.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,4,"The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained the main reason why staff did not
propose any additional waivers or fees. The project team does not yet have enough information on
potential impacts, or what LBNL is proposing, especially in terms of how much money is brought to
the table for infrastructure. There is also no developer on board yet that could advise on the
financial side of the deal. The project team is concerned about giving away too much too soon
because there are still transportation infrastructure burdened out at Alameda Point.
Member Johnson discussed not proposing anything specific, but suggested indicating a catalog of
other incentives the ARRA is open and willing to discuss with LBNL. Member deHaan commented
that owning an electric company is extremely powerful. The Deputy City Manager - Development
Services informed the Board that the Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) General Manager has
discussed the proposal with the Public Utilities Board. There are mitigateable risks and concerns
about load and usage; AMP has to be careful not to offer discounts on rates that might spike usage.
Staff can be more responsive and can start addressing and negotiating terms if/when the ARRA is
short listed.
Member Johnson commented that there is a risk if a long-term contract for power is given, and the
user goes away, making a comparison to when the Navy closed the base. Fortunately for the City of
Alameda, because of the long-term power contract it had with the Navy, the City had excess power,
which was sold, back to the grid during the power crisis. Member Johnson stated that the LBNL
scenario should not be viewed as risk, but as an opportunity.
Chair Gilmore requested a full report from the AMP General Manager on the electric issue. The
Acting City Manager stated that a report would be presented at the next ARRA meeting on March 2.
Member Johnson motioned to direct staff to prepare and put forth an RFQ for a Developer
for the LBNL project. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
4.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-015) Oral report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative
- Highlights of January 6, 2011 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed Building 5 and 5A (Site OU-2C), a 1.5M square
feet complex, to make a determination to bring the site to remediation level. The site was the
center and hub of industrial operation, there was lots of activity causing a major impact to the
environment, including radiation concerns. The Navy has four proposals: 1) take no action, 2)
cement the pipes, 3) tear the building down, and 4) dig and haul. Member deHaan commented that
he is impressed with the dedication of the RAB members and the community, they have depth of
knowledge which they lend as community support and have come up with good recommendations.
The RAB also discussed the conveyance status and the redevelopment planning status. Member
deHaan stated that the Deputy City Manager - Development Services presented the Going
Forward process to the RAB and it was well received. Member deHaan stated that he will not be
able to attend the February 3 RAB meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
Member Johnson also reminded staff and the public not to forget the commitment of the Navy
during the remediation process. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that staff
would ask the Board for policy direction on the OU-2C site in coming months.
Speaker: Gretchen Lipow
5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-03-02,5,"None.
6.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
7.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
8.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-03-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,1,"APPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-032) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of March 2, 2011, Minutes of the
Special Joint City Council/ARRA/Community Improvement Meetings held on March 15, 2011.
(*11-033) Approve a Waiver of License Fees for Pacific Skyline Council and BSA Sea Scouts -
Ancient Mariner Regatta.
(*11-034) Approve the Proposed Sale of Two Grove Cranes to NRC Environmental Services.
(*11-035) Authorize the ARRA Port Manager, NRC Environmental Services, to Replace the Pier
2 Fendering System in an Amount Not to Exceed $260,000.
(*11-036) Authorize PM Realty Group to Enter into a Contract with Scott Electric for Pier 3
Electrical Upgrades at Alameda Point for a Contract Not to Exceed $238,266 Using Remaining
ARRA Bond Funds.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Chair Gilmore moved Item 7-A to be the first item discussed under the Regular Agenda
Items.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-037) Alameda Point Commercial Market Assessment.
The Deputy City Manager gave a presentation focusing on Alameda and East Bay market
conditions and the implications for Alameda Point and its redevelopment, strictly to provide a
market overview and not a development strategy, to determine the state of the market as it
exists today.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,2,"John McManus, senior director of Cushman & Wakefield was available to answer questions.
Chair Gilmore expressed concern that implementing a long term lease strategy that is niche-
focused will take as long as implementing a development plan.
Mr. McManus replied that a reuse strategy is different than a build-to-suit strategy, stating that it
is important that it is clearly defined what is available. Advised a strategy to show potential
office buildings with a potential floor plan and be able to explain to potential tenants that all risks
have been removed and understand what can be delivered.
Chair Gilmore clarified that in order to effectively market Alameda Point, money needs to be
spent upfront to determine concept buildings or concept plans apart from what the master plan
ends up being. Mr. McManus agreed with Chair Gilmore, stating that there needs to be a clear
definition, and if it is left to the potential tenants to figure out, in an environment where there is
so much vacancy, chances are that Alameda Point will not get their attention unless it's a very
unique use with a big footprint.
Member Tam inquired about the element of competition in the marketplace, asking what kind of
recommended capital outlay is needed for Alameda Point to have a competitive edge. Mr.
McManus stated that the good competitive news is that redevelopment and enterprise zones
are not going to be competitors for Alameda Point.
Joe Ernst, SRM associates, added that there is so much obsolescence of space - there is no
longer a need for more plain office space -- and it is a function of understanding the market for
spaces and uses that cannot be developed elsewhere, and aligning with the right team to
develop it. Vice Chair Bonta inquired if there are market segments performing differently than
the market trends. Mr. Ernst replied that those segments with superior performance include life
sciences, such as the LBNL opportunity, light industrial, and R&D flex space.
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the next step will involve doing
more research and return to the Board with ideas or strategies.
Chair Gilmore thanked the Deputy City Manager- Development Services and staff for the
overview.
(11-038) Review and Comment on Summary Report for the Community Planning Process for
Alameda Point.
The Planning Services Supervisor and the Deputy City Manager- - Development Services gave a
presentation on the Community Planning Process.
Speakers: Elizabeth Krase Greene, Adam Gillitt, Nancy Gordon, Gretchen Lipow, Helen Sause,
Carol Gottstein, Susan Galleymore, Nancy Hird.
Chair Gilmore commented that she is looking forward to be able to discuss the financial
feasibility of the Alameda Point project with the public so the community can understand how
much it will cost to develop Alameda Point. In the past, since the developer was running a pro
forma, a lot of costs were not able to be shared with the public. Chair Gilmore stated that
certain costs are inescapable, no matter what is developed: infrastructure costs between $600M
- $800M.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,3,"Member Tam concurred with Chair Gilmore and added that economic underpinnings are critical
at Alameda Point. Member Tam and Chair Gilmore expressed their appreciation to staff and the
community for all their time and effort in the Community Planning Process.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-039) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
- Highlights of March 3, 2011 RAB Meeting.
Member deHaan reported that the RAB discussed the San Francisco Estuary Regional
Monitoring program, a program that monitors 22 water sites in bay, and 47 sediment sites. The
RAB would like the program to take on one area of Alameda Point to monitor. The OU2A site,
adjacent to Encinal High School, was also discussed. Surface remediation was done, and final
remediation will be completed. Tomorrow's meeting (3/4) will include an update on the
Seaplane Lagoon.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-040) Update on Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Second Campus Request for
Qualifications.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services gave a presentation on the LBNL Campus
opportunity.
Representatives from the development teams introduced themselves to the Council: Joe Ernst,
SRM; Mary Pampuch, Lankford & Associates, Inc.
Speakers: Robert Todd
Member Tam inquired whether any of the 21 applicants that had responded have the same type
of potential development partner in RFQ process, in particular inquired if Alameda's partners are
unique to Alameda.
The Deputy City Manager-Development Services responded that to her knowledge, the other
sites are already owned by developers or have already teamed with private property owners;
the other applicants did not go through an RFQ process for a developer like Alameda, and none
of the other teams are teamed with the other sites.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired when the announcement of the short list will be made and how short
is the short list. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services replied that the call can come
through at any time now and that three on the short list is reasonable. Member Tam inquired if
there was any value to engaging legislators. The Deputy City Manager-Development Services
stated that letters have been sent to Stark and Swanson, but recommends waiting until the short
list comes out before Alameda starts lobbying.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for the update and thanked the representatives from the
development teams for attending and introducing themselves to the Board.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-04-06,4,"8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:16 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-04-06.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:04 p.m. with Vice Chair Bonta presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Vice Chair Bonta, Members deHaan, Johnson, and Tam
and Chair -4.
(Note: Member Johnson arrived at 7:07 p.m.)
Absent:
Mayor Gilmore - 1
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-048) Approve the Minutes of the Regular ARRA Meeting of April 6, 2011 and the Special
ARRA Meeting of May 17, 2011.
(*11-049) Approve a No-Cost, Two-Year Lease Agreement with Friends of Alameda Theater,
Inc. for a Portion of Building 91 at Alameda Point.
(*11-050) Transmittal of May 18, 2011 Webinar Presentation.
Vice Chair Bonta pulled item 3-B (Building 91) for clarification.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired why the rent for Building 19 is being waived, instead of having a
paying tenant. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division Manager, explained that
Building 91 is being split between two tenants, one on a month-to-month term. The entire space
is currently being marketed, and the lease has a 90-day termination clause. The building would
be vacant otherwise.
Member Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member
deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3. [Items so
enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-B. Member deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 3.
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-051) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative
- Highlights of April 7 and May 5, 2011 RAB Meetings.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,2,"Member deHaan reported that the RAB is starting to look at the fuel distribution system
underneath the runway, adjacent to the lagoon. He explained that since it is fuel, the
clean up might be problematic, but easier to remediate than heavy metals and PCBs as
in other sites.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-052) Alameda Point Update
The Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a short update. Alameda Point was
among six other sites LBNL short-listed for its second campus. Staff is working with the
development team daily to prepare high quality responses to upcoming submittals to LBNL.
The final selection process will be in November.
A two-hour developer interview was held on May 31st, which included a 30-minute presentation,
by the development team. The presentation included case studies of projects they worked on,
project delivery, and public outreach plans. Staff plans to have other informal meetings with the
development team.
A community meeting is scheduled for July 13th from 7-9:30 p.m. Staff is looking at various
suitable venues, in terms of capacity and access. There will be an extensive outreach plan,
including revamping and developing a separate website focused on LBNL, and a Facebook
page which will be managed by a marketing company - all in an effort to access different
populations that have not been accessed before. Staff and the development team will be
making presentations to different organizations throughout the city. Staff will provide a packet of
the community outreach materials to the City Council at its June 21st meeting.
Regarding the larger master planning efforts of Alameda Point, staff held its first webinar on
May 18, 2011 to impart the financial basics on how the pro forma works more generically, and
details on infrastructure costs related to the existing entitlement, which is the general plan. A
Transportation workshop was held on May 26, 2011. There was a presentation that detailed
case studies of how other communities dealt with traffic congestion issues, how they addressed
those issues and moved forward, including Santa Monica, CA and Boulder, CO, which has
similar density to Alameda. A Sustainability Workshop is scheduled on June 14th to look at
other communities to achieve sustainability and implement some sustainability concepts.
Another webinar will be scheduled in July to follow up on details of pro forma, and the approach
to get the community involved in the financial side. More developer interviews will be done.
Member deHaan inquired if the transportation study is posted online, to which the Deputy City
Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative, stating that the report will also
be transmitted to the Board. Member deHaan complimented staff on the financial webinar,
stating that he was impressed with a job well done.
Member Tam inquired what proportion of backbone infrastructure cost will be needed for the
LBNL site. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the amount is being
calculated. Phase one will not have much new infrastructure, but for build out, there will be",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,3,"more improvements needed. Staff is also working with Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) on the
calculations. AMP will be able to serve the first phase without a lot of improvements.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired what the average number of participants was for the community
engagement events and how the information is being disseminated. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services explained that the Transportation Workshop was not well attended, as
there was a League of Women Voters event on the same night. There were fewer than 20
people at the Transportation Workshop, and approximately 50 people attended the webinar (35
people attending online with approximately 10-15 present in person). The recording of webinar
is available online, and the pdf of presentations will also be posted online.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired if the Sustainability workshops will be recorded, stating that the
community would take the opportunity to participate and view if it were available online, and that
there is value to holding the events in Chambers so that they can be broadcast and recorded.
Member deHaan agreed, stating that the community watches meetings on the City's channel
15, and although the audience is small in chambers, there are a lot of home viewers and may
reach more people. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that with the
Sustainability Workshop in particular, the element of interaction from community is needed.
Vice Chair Bonta expressed his appreciation for staff's efforts regarding the July 13th event and
inquired about other smaller events for community outreach. The Deputy City Manager -
Development Services stated that the team has a calendar of events scheduled. They have
met with the Chamber of Commerce, and plan to attend and present at several joint mixers with
the WABA, PSBA, Rotary, League of Women, Business Association newsletters, Concerts at
the Cove etc.
Member Johnson suggested giving a presentation to school board. Member Tam suggested
including the Peralta Community College District Board community to gain support of
environmental community. The Acting City Manager meets with a realtors association and
plans to bring something more formal to them. Vice Chair Bonta asked that the Hospital Board
be included in the outreach.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member Tam provided a brief report on the Legislative Action day of May 18th. On the budget
scene, the delegation - Loni Hancock, Joan Buchanan, Mary Hayashi, Nancy Skinner, Bob
Wieckowski, and Mark DeSaulnier - seemed determined that they would have a budget to send
to the Governor on June 15th because this is the first time Prop. 25 has been implemented,
which stipulates that they won't get paid if the budget is not presented.
Regarding redevelopment, the league is very clear about the priorities, they understand at least
in the East Bay district, not all the legislators will be supportive, Hancock, Buchanan, Hiyashi
and Wieckowski were opposed to keeping redevelopment, as they have seen through the
Governor's discussion that there has been abuses by some agencies. Assemblymember
Swanson has seen benefits of redevelopment and understands LBNL's need for RDA funding
(several cities in his district are on the short list). An option that the league is exploring is reform
to deal with the abuses, including Senator Wright's bill, which tightens the definition of blighted
areas in redevelopment and putting caps and mechanisms to avoid some of these abuses.",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-06-01,4,"Member deHaan inquired how the legislators discussed slicing out base conversion.
The
Deputy City Manager - Development Services discussed a bill in circulation that carves out
military bases, a new bill from the League of Cities, and the CAL Redevelopment Agency and
Association of Defense Communities. Senator Wiggins introduced a bill on behalf of
communities with Bases, which staff will be monitoring.
The Acting City Attorney reminded the Board that this discussion couldn't continue, as it is not
on the agenda. It can be agendized on a future meeting if they want to discuss it further.
Member Tam concluded her report.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Chair Bonta adjourned the meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-06-01.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-09-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, September 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-063) Approve the Minutes of the Special ARRA Meetings of July 13, 2011 and July 19, 2011.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-064) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of August 4, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan stated that Site OU-2C, a major contamination area, was discussed. The site
has been worked on in many phases. The RAB has set an alternative for Site D-6 which is $16M,
stating that the Navy wants to go with the $5.8M. The issue is still being discussed and under
evaluation.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
(11-065) Provide Update on Status of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Process and
Redevelopment of Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that LBNL members visited the site
and were given a guided tour and presentation. LBNL and consultants are currently
reviewing site submittals. In Sept/Oct staff will compile one final response. LBNL stated
that they will review final submittals and make a recommendation to the UC Regents in
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-09-07,2,"November. Regarding the larger redevelopment of Alameda Point, there are ongoing
negotiations with the Navy re: conveyance of property, continuing conversation with State
Lands re: Tidelands Trust Exchange. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point will
come back to the ARRA with updates in the next couple of months.
Member deHaan asked to confirm the LBNL timeline. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point explained that the UC Regents meets every two months, if the timeline were to slip, or if they
were not ready to make a selection in November, the issue will slip to the next meeting in January.
The City Manager informed the Board that staff has informally heard that the selection may indeed
slip to January, but reassured the Board that staff is completely ready and has not asked for any
extension as others have. Alameda is on time, on budget, and will be ready for a November
meeting if it happens. Staff is urging a prompt decision.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan discussed that the Associated Community Action Plan (ACAP) will have their last
meeting next week. He recommends that community members view their audit, which was
released to the public.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,1,"80
UNAPPROVED
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, Ocotber 5, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
Chair Gilmore requested that the Pledge of Allegiance be added to the ARRA agenda.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-069) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular ARRA Meetings of September 7, 2011.
Member deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded
the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-070) Approve Term Sheet between United States Navy and the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for No-Cost Conveyance of Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point summarized the Term Sheet.
Pursue no-cost
conveyance for LBNL, Navy Comprehensive conveyance strategy for entire base - discussed the
major terms. Next steps to negotiate amendment to existing economic development conveyance
memorandum of agreement bring back to ARRA for approval.
The Acting City Attorney asked the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point to explain the
Environmental Review of the term sheet. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained
that Alameda Point does not constitute a project under CEQA, therefore the Board is able to
approve the term sheet without conducting additional environmental review.
Speaker: Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, congratulated staff on a job well done after 14 years. Ms.
Lichtenstein discussed hope for the housing plan to move ahead, and hopefully with LBNL at the
Point.
Regarding the enforcement provision of the market rate residential, Chair Gilmore requested
confirmation that the City will not have to pay the $50,000 fee per unit to the Navy. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.
Vice Chair Bonta reemphasized that the Navy will maintain their obligation to clean up the
property. The City Manager also reiterated that the City has incurred no environmental liability.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,2,"81
Member Tam discussed the City's other obligation to provide work-force and affordable housing.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that since staff has been
receiving a lot of inquiries regarding remediation, there will be a presentation from the
Environmental Consultant, Peter Russell, at the November ARRA meeting.
Chair Gilmore stated that, in addition to the no-cost conveyance, the City gets control over the
land. This is a valuable opportunity to develop more long term leases because we can provide
tenants with certainty.
Member deHaan recognized and thanked the members of the BRAG and other numerous
community organizations over the past 15 years. Chair Gilmore joined Member deHaan in
recognizing the community organizations that brought us to this point.
Member Bonta moved to approve the Term Sheet. Member Tam seconded the motion. On
the call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote:
Member deHaan - Aye, Member Johnson - Aye, Member Tam - Aye, Vice Chair Bonta -
Aye, Chair Gilmore - Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-071) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of September 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan introduced Richard Banger, RAB member, who was present in the in audience.
Mr. Banger compiled a great amount of information on the history and activity regarding the
remediation of Alameda Point on his website: www.alamedapointenvironmentalreport.com
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added that, with Mr. Banger's help, key information
about remediation will be included on the City's website. Staff is also working with the
Environmental Consultant, Peter Russell, to provide a less technical, shorter executive summary,
but have technical minutes still available.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
Carol Gottstein, Alameda citizen, spoke about the base cleanup and informed the public about the
repository at City Hall West which includes a large amount of information regarding the Alameda
Point remediation. Ms. Gottstein recently joined the RAB and encouraged others to join or attend
the RAB meetings.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
The City Manager stated that staff and the Council owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Ott (Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point) for all her hard work in bringing us to this point. Vice Chair
Bonta thanked Ms. Ott publicly, commending her on the great work and that the Board is proud of
the fantastic results. Chair Gilmore thanked Ms. Ott for staying the course and working through
many years of frustration. Member Johnson thanked the attorneys for a team effort.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-10-05,3,"82
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
September 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special
and Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.
(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for
Buildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive
Director to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.
Chair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for
approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Member Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and
Member Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not
present at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point
Site.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the
Alameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint
presentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.
Dr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia
Arsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.
Member deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental
program of Alameda Point.
Speakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed
soil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,2,"Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and
diligence over the decade and more.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public
that the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with
certain restrictions.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,3,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
Comments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair
33:49
The residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
At Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
that the health risk and health hazard from both soil and
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is
groundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-
not being addressed.
family residential land use; which is the most stringent land-
use standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA
(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk
and Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of
to community members, they seem to get confused because
toxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy
the residential standards are for groundwater only, and they
and the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding
are not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,
whether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land
cadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and
use and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.
that is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)
34:14
Slide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are
Contamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is
petroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One
addressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,
month they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For
whichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a
example, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in
site with petroleum contamination is typically managed
the petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.
under the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum
contamination also is present. Occasionally, management of
(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to
a particular site will transfer from one program to another
the EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,
during the course of investigation and remedial decision
and I don't know if you changed those or you basically used
making. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA
those graphs. You know the tall Yeah,
so
those
are
Program if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found
CERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move
at a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of
in and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One
human health and the environment are the same with both
month they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So
programs.
there are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume
under Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the
petroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it
got put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I
said, the soil is not being remediated.)
35:09
According to the presentation, ""cleanup"" means active
This comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater
Page 1 of 1
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,4,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
remediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much
contamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point
longer than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation
groundwater contamination sites follows two principal
on one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was
steps. The first is an initial phase, during which the
going to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe
contamination, especially the source area, is treated, for
restrictions on the use of that site.
example by injection of chemicals or by heating. The
second phase typically consists of periodic groundwater
(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I
sampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further
read it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the
reducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often
military, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are
takes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-
digging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much
up goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the
longer than that. We had a presentation on one site two
second phase can last for several decades, as in the example
months ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35
of Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).
years, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that
site. So bear that in mind.)
During the second phase, land-use restrictions may be
applied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the
groundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater
contamination, land-use restrictions may also require that
building designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,
etc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during
the second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the
site. Thus, ""severe restrictions"" on land use typically apply
only to the first few years of cleanup.
35:44
Quite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative
CERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate
technologies. But the Navy is using experimental
the extent to which each remedial alterative under
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
consideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of
money, so the Navy is able to make presentations to
contaminants through treatment. This statutory preference
scientific boards.
implies that innovative technologies sometimes will be
selected as the preferred clean-up alternative.
(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that
there has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using
Sometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging
innovative technologies. But they' re using experimental
technology will be effective under conditions found at
Page 2 of 2
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,5,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
technologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of
Alameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of
money. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make
experiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the
presentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this
technology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal
technology and it did not work.)
treatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and
found to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of
nano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and
found not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the
environmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the
pilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate
the promising technology.
The principal instance where experimentation with
technologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding
groundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a
university and an EPA national laboratory approached the
Navy for permission to conduct an experiment on
groundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily
funded externally, and the information obtained by the
project has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B
groundwater.
36:16
An ""active cleanup"" site on Slide 13 means a site for which
The ""Active Cleanup"" column in the graph on Slide 13
the regulators have signed off on site characterization and
includes sites which have completed their RODs and design
remedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,
or implementation of the active remediation is in progress.
RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category
Sites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are
don't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active
categorized on Slide 13 as ""Under Investigation"" CERCLA
cleanup column anyway.
requires that remedial activities in the field begin within
fifteen months of completing the ROD.
(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means
anything that has moved to the point where the regulators
The distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained
have signed off on site characterization and remedial
more explicitly on future versions of this slide.
investigation, and now and has moved into a place where
Page 3 of 3
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,6,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
there are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of
it doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the
active cleanup column.)
36:46
The presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the
The IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the
Northwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But
BCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil
most of these areas have recently been found to have radium
at Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the
contamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of
boundaries of the site in the area the comment references
this contamination.
(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium
contamination in soil extending over a greater area than was
(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories
originally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an
to be white, but they have recently been found to be covered
extensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The
with radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I
preliminary results from this investigation indicate that the
recall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how
extent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current
that's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)
IR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).
37:09
Natural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect
Natural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes
it to occur in the next five or ten years?
that reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually
relatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,
(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my
volatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in
cohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation
reducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after
hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to
the initial active-cleanup phase.
occur in the next five or ten years?)
A fundamental component of the monitored natural
attenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing
groundwater sampling and analysis to verify that
contaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels
do not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to
ensure clean-up goals are achieved.
More technical response: Two factors support the
expectation that natural attenuation will work well after
active remediation.
Page 4 of 4
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,7,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
First, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade
many contaminants, often an important component of
natural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may
include contaminant levels that are so high that they are
toxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute
concentrations, would readily consume the contamination as
food. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of
the higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can
proceed more effectively.
Second, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the
effect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is
because of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.
A simple example illustrates this point. With an initial
contaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter
(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus
ten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same
groundwater could yield analytical results anywhere
between 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion
purposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant
concentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural
attenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable
period of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an
initial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant
levels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples
would yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-
10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would
be both meaningful and discernible by sampling and
analysis.
37:25
Planting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit
Restrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda
Page 5 of 5
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-11-02,8,"Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011
Time
Comment
Marker
Response
growing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will
Point: in only three instances.
not.
First, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the
(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question
Threshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.
about planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.
You'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,
Second, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was
and you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to
conducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or
dig a hole in the soil.)
pavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted
without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Additionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground
surface at North Housing is prohibited without approval
from the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In
any case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging
were conducted while following a site management plan
that appropriately manages potential encounters with
contaminated soil.
Third, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential
area, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is
restricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.
Page 6 of 6
November 7, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, December 7, 2011
The meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*11-081) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of November 2, 2011.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(11-082) Presentation on Status of Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a power point presentation summarizing the
next steps for moving forward with the no cost reconveyance and development strategy for
Alameda Point. Staff is providing the update to the Board before moving into the next phase of
making recommendations. The summary focused on entitlement, transportation infrastructure,
solicitation and transaction.
Speakers: Carol Gottstein discussed maximizing the land value of Alameda Point, specifically
Building 94, Chapel.
Chair Gilmore stated accountability issues are a downside to Phased Development. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained the key is to have really good design up front, and
guiding documents that dictate how larger engineering and structure will work globally, so that the
design is solid. There is concern about different developers doing backbone infrastructure for small
pieces. Having a uniform developer for larger, 100- acre parcels, would narrow accountability
issues with fewer people.
Member Tam discussed concerns about funding of predevelopment costs, backbone
infrastructure, and that the days of tax increment bond funding may not be available because of
the elimination of redevelopment. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point remains positive
that redevelopment will continue, and tax increment bonds will definitely be part of the plan. Staff
will have more information on potential funding sources to present to the Board at a future meeting.
Member deHaan inquired where funding for predevelopment can be derived. The Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point discussed the two sides to the equation - cost side and revenue side.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,2,"With reasonable costs, a developer can provide ideas to test assumptions. ARRA has a fund
balance, with a certain amount spent on planning. Options will be explored to find ways to
leverage for upfront costs. Staff is exploring other sources of low cost capital with contingencies
built into the costs, with the same analysis used for other options.
Vice Chair Bonta inquired about the developer role as an advisor to ARRA. The Chief Operating
Officer - Alameda Point explained that ARRA would be the property owner and maintain control
over entitlement process. With the understanding that ARRA is not a developer, put out an RFQ
for a development advisor, with a recommendation that the advisor actually be a developer with
experience working on large-scale projects, not just a consultant. In this advisor role, the
developer would actually work for the ARRA, are paid a monthly fee, but their contract can be
terminated by the ARRA. The advantage from a transaction standpoint is that it would be a simple
contract; the advisor has no actual rights to development or land. The concept is that the ARRA
maintain control, work in a partnership, but ARRA would be the leader. Vice Chair Bonta inquired
if there are any examples of that type of partnership. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda
Point stated that Hamilton AFB is a similar example. Hamilton hired a team of advisors, which
included attorneys and economic consultants who planned and entitled all of Hamilton. They did
an RFQ with developers and negotiated purchase and sale, but had entitlements all upfront.
Member Johnson expressed concern about handling the most difficult parcels or areas that will
take longer to clean up. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed starting up efforts
and creating value will make the property more valuable. Less money is taken out of the project by
a master developer, which leaves more money in the project for development itself.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that staff would be coming back
to the ARRA with an update in February.
(11-083) Presentation on the Status of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus
Process.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point provided an oral update on the LBNL Second
Campus process. LBNL announced that they postponed their selection decision to early 2012.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that it is staff's supposition that LBNL has
made a selection, but they are making sure the DOE and UC Regents are on the same page and
policy makers are on board.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
None.
6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2011-12-07,3,"9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
Member deHaan gave a brief report on the December 1 RAB meeting. The main issue was the
RAB's plan for ongoing years, specifically the schedule and frequency of meetings. The Navy
proposed to meet on a quarterly basis to cut back on operations costs. Various options are still
being explored, including teleconferencing capabilities. The RAB elected Dale Smith as Co-chair
and Carol Gottstein as Vice Co-chair.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
November 2, 2011",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
WEDNESDAY, January 4, 2012
The meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.
1. ROLL CALL
Present:
Board Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
(12-001) Cara Kuhlman, Alameda, discussed starting dialogue with the ARRA to open a
community sailing center program at Alameda Point.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR
(*12-002) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of December 7, 2011.
(*12-003) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with
Russell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term
for 12 Months and Adding $165,000 to the Budget.
(*12-004) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with
Carlson, Barbee & Gibson for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda
Point Extending the Term for 24 Months and Adding $74,400 to the Budget.
Member Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]
4.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(12-005) Award Contract in the Amount of $225,000 to Keyser Marston Associates to Prepare an
Economic Development Strategy for Alameda Point.
The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the Office of Economic Adjustment
$225,000 award to the ARRA to conduct economic development strategy.
Member Johnson expressed concern that any economic strategy or plan may be irrelevant
because of the elimination of the redevelopment agencies. The Chief Operating Officer -
Alameda Point explained that it is even more important to have a strategy in place and be
prepared to attract industrial and commercial users that can help bring in the infrastructure.
Member Tam inquired if there will be an increased dependency on private funds because of the
loss of tax increment funding. Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, stated that there are lots of opportunity
for growth and enhancement with existing tenants. He discussed other financing tools available,
including Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts. Mr. Kelly explained
that these financing tools have to be packaged in phases so it can be managed and delivered.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,2,"Member deHaan expressed concern about how to address the community process. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained that there was feedback from the community that
there is a bit of fatigue on community meetings. The focus now is to engage the tenants. The
Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed with Member deHaan that the Economic
Development Commission and other formal bodies should be engaged.
Vice Chair Bonta moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(12-006) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the Economic Development
Conveyance of Portions of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda.
Chair Gilmore stated that although the No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance is
overshadowed by the redevelopment news, it is still amazing and exciting news. The Chief
Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed and provided a summary of events. The ARRA
approved a term sheet with the Navy on October 5, 2011. The term sheet contemplated a no-cost
conveyance of Alameda Point from the Navy to the ARRA consistent with the 1996 Reuse Plan.
The Term Sheet became the final amendment to the existing 2000 Memorandum of Agreement
with the Navy. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the changes, including the
conveyance schedule, the enforcement mechanism, use of proceeds, and the addition of
submerged lands. The conveyance schedule contemplates a vast majority of the property coming
to the ARRA by the end of 2012.
Chair Gilmore thanked staff for working tirelessly and effortlessly over the years to make the No-
Cost Economic Development Conveyance happen.
Proponent: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).
Member Tam moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson
seconded the motion. Chair Gilmore requested a roll-call vote be conducted: Vice Chair
Bonta - aye, Member deHaan - aye, Member Johnson - aye, Member Tam - aye, Chair
Gilmore - aye. Ayes - 5, Abstentions - 0, Noes - 0.
5.
ORAL REPORTS
(12-007) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -
Highlights of December 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.
Member deHaan stated that he provided the 12/1 update at the December ARRA meeting and
that the RAB will not meet again until March. It is still being evaluated and discussed if RAB
meetings will be held on a quarterly basis.
6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)
None.
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,3,"7.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS
The Executive Director re-emphasized the news of the ARRA receiving portions of Alameda Point
at a No-Cost Conveyance.
8.
REFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
9.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY
None.
10. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Irma Glidden
ARRA Secretary
Regular Meeting
ARRA
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--6:00 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present:
Councilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor
Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
The meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:
(12-015) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Human
Resources Director and Masa Shiohira; Employee Organizations: Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda City Employees Association
(ACEA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Police Officers
Non-Sworn (PANS).
Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore
announced that the labor negotiators provided the status of negotiations with four
bargaining units: IBEW, ACEA, PANs, and MCEA.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 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
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,5,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING
AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012- -7:02 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:51 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Commissioners
Allen,
Bonta,
deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 6.
Absent:
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(12-017 CC) Resolution No. 14634, ""(1) Determining It Will Serve as a Successor
Agency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (""CIC""); (2)
Electing Not to Retain the Housing Assets and Functions Previously Performed by the
CIC; (3) Authorizing Assumption by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda
(""Housing Authority"") of the Rights, Powers, Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations
Associated with the Housing Activities of the CIC; and (4) Authorizing the City Manager
to Enter Into an Agreement with the Housing Authority to Fund Costs Associated with
the Transferred Housing Activities."" Adopted; and
(12-001 A HABOC) Resolution No. 836, ""(1) Agreeing to Assume the Rights, Powers,
Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations Associated with the Housing Activities of the
Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda; and (2) Authorizing the
Executive Director to Enter Into an Agreement with the City of Alameda to Fund Costs
Associated with the Transferred Housing Activities."" Adopted.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated redevelopment agencies would cease to exist on February
1st, but agreements for 400 redevelopment agencies would not suddenly come into
existence on February 2nd
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated agreements would exist
because of each agency's enforceable obligation schedule.
In response to Mayor/Chair Gilmore's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs
Manager stated the County Auditor-Controller would need to audit each agency's
enforceable obligation schedule by July 1st.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a trust fund would be
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
1
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,6,"automatically established by ABX1 26, to which the Housing Development and
Programs Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated on February 1st, responsible agencies would start
expending funds in the normal course of business; hopefully, reimbursement would be
set in place on July 1st.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated an administrative budget
needs to be presented for each successor agency by February; the legislation has
some inconsistencies; last year, an obligation schedule was done which predicted
payment obligations pursuant to enforceable obligations; the next one would be due
March 1st, which would cover January 1st to June 30th; schedules would need to be
approved by the Oversight Board that would review work of the successor agency; the
Oversight Board would not come into existence until May 1st; suggested amending
Section 7 to read: ""This resolution shall take effect and be enforced as of the deadline
for adoption of this resolution established pursuant to State law as may be amended
from time to time"".
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquired whether the City could recover money, to
which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the money has not been
submitted yet.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated the State was not hitting budget targets before the ruling; it
appeared that automatic cuts would go into effect; the State will not receive $1.7 billion
due to legislation being declared unconstitutional.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated that the State has centralized what the
payments would be but has created chaos throughout the system.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta stated things are moving very quickly; that he wants to
ensure that the City does not do something it will regret later; inquired what precautions
would be taken if another legislative remedy caused the City's successor agency role to
not be advantageous, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the
resolutions could always be amended.
In response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, Rafael Mandelman, Burke,
Williams, and Sorensen, stated January 13th is the drop-dead date for cities to opt out of
becoming a successor agency.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated a significant amount of affordable
housing has been created by redevelopment agencies; inquired whether affordable
housing would also cease.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager responded hopefully, housing
advocates would do something about having a permanent income stream fund for
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
2
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,7,"affordable housing; stated the need would not go away.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated the City receives allocations from the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); without said money, houses cannot be
built regardless of the allocations.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated redevelopment has been the primary
economic development program in California; without economic development, there is
no money for schools or work force housing; that he predicts the State would replace
some functions but would do so in a centralized, clunky way rather than in a flexible,
nimble, and local manner.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other municipalities are handling
the issue, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded
Alameda would be the first to act on the matter.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated that redevelopment pays for police officers,
half of the Mayor, Council, and Auditor's salary, which otherwise would need to come
from the General Fund; everything would have to made up from the General Fund; the
City has never honeycombed redevelopment.
Mr. Mandelman stated the landscape is rapidly changing and the law is drafted poorly;
there will be many messy situations over the next months; the City would be taking on
responsibility to manage some of the chaos by becoming the successor agency;
management would be done by an unfriendly Oversight Board.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether another path or second best
approach might be adequate but would not be as good as the one recommended
tonight.
Mr. Mandelman responded tonight's recommendation is the only way to go if the City
wants to be a successor agency; stated otherwise, the Governor would appoint County
residents.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore stated Council has tried for a number of years to get Alameda
Point from the Navy so that the City could have local control and have a say in how
things move forward.
The Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the City would want local
control over the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement; exercising
local control over the project would be important.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the City would have local control but would
lose its ability to generate local revenue through redevelopment; the City would be more
dependant upon private developer funding for infrastructure and meeting affordable
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
3
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,8,"housing marketing objectives; the City would have to find some way to be more
marketable and needs to fight fiercely.
The Acting City Attorney/Legal Council stated a lot of new ideas would be forthcoming.
Mr. Mandelman stated the California Redevelopment Association and League of
California Cities are actively focusing on State goals but would include goals important
to Alameda such as Base reuse and housing.
In favor of resolutions: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, and Jon
Spangler, Alameda.
Mayor/Chair Gilmore expressed appreciation to staff for acting so quickly on the matter;
stated the recommendation is viable.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether tonight's recommendation would be
the only way to exercise local control, to which Mr. Mandelman responded that he thinks
so.
In response to Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Mandelman stated
the deadline for dissolution is February 1st; up to that time, the legislature would have an
opportunity to come up with something that would work for communities that have
bases that need to be redeveloped; the deadline for deciding whether to be a successor
agency is January 13th
The Chief Operating Officer stated that she has a conference call scheduled for 8:30
a.m. tomorrow with base reuse communities.
Councilmember/Commissioner Johnson moved adoption of the resolutions with noted
amendment to Section 7.
Councilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 6.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:37
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners
4
January 1, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority,2012-01-04,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--7:01 P.M.
Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present:
Councilmembers/Boaro Members Bonta, deHaan,
Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.
Absent:
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmembers/Board Member Johnson moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Board Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(12-016 CC) Resolution No. 14642, ""Appropriating $379,000 in Federal HOME Funds
and Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Necessary Documents
to
Complete the Loan to the Alameda Point Collaborative for Acquisition of 240 Corpus
Christi, 230 Corpus Christi, 2471 Orion, 2451 Orion, 201 Stardust, 251 Stardust, and
271 Stardust (""Property"").' Adopted; and
(12-008 ARRA) Recommendation to Approve Financing on the Property in the Amount
of $2,279,000. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEM
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:50
p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 4, 2012",AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-003 - ) Presentation on the basic requirements for an Indian
Tribe to operate a Casino in California.
The Assistant City Attorney provided a brief report on the basic
requirements to conduct tribal gaming.
Mayor Johnson stated that the purpose of the presentation was to
inform the public on the required process for the Koi Tribe to
obtain approval for a casino; stated that presentation tapes would
be available for public review and that the public should direct
questions to the City Attorney's office.
Michael Scholtes, Bay Isle Pointe Home Owners Association, stated
that he opposes the proposed casino.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to place a resolution opposing the
proposed casino on the next City Council agenda.
Rosemary Cambra, Mowekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay
Area, submitted a handout and cautioned the Council on taking a
stance against the proposed casino.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Council would need to exert
pressure and fight on behalf of the City.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve
Agreement between the Alameda Unified School District and the City
of Alameda [paragraph no. 05-010], the Resolution Authorizing Open
Market Purchase [paragraph no. 05-012], and the Ordinance Amending
the Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 05-016] were removed from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-004) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on December 21, 2004. Approved.
(*05-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,037,089.03
(*05-006) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$127,102.65 to Stewart & Stevenson for Ferry Vessel Reduction
Gears, No. P.W. 10-04-15. Accepted.
(*05-007) Recommendation to terminate the Contract with J.W. Riley
& Son, Inc. for Alameda Point Multi Use Field, No. P.W. 12-02-18
and authorize project completion. Accepted.
(*05-008 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $45,000
to Maze and Associates for Financial Modeling Services. Accepted.
( *05-009) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Affordable
Housing Ordinance. Accepted.
(05-010) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the Alameda
Unified School District and the City of Alameda for Use and
Development of Real Property at the K-8 School and Park site in the
Bayport Residential Development Project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Agreement facilitates the goal for
having the school and the park built near the Bayport residential
area.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is funding for the
Preschool and Tiny Tots at the Community Building, to which the
Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*05-011) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Residential Interim
115Kv overhead power line improvements and authorize recording a
Notice of Completion. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,3,"(05-012) - Resolution No. 13807, , ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Allied Sweepers, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda
City Charter, of Green Machine Sidewalk Cleaning Equipment. ""
Adopted.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) thanked the
Council for their efforts with the Webster Street project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was happy to see the project
progressing; she would like to see the trees replaced as soon as
possible.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased with the progress;
requested periodic progress reports on the Streetscape Project.
Mayor Johnson stated schedule updates should continue to be
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *05-013 - ) Resolution No. 13808, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 8401
(2340 and 2350 North Loop Road). "" Adopted.
(*05-014) Resolution No. 13809, ""Reappointing T. David Edwards as
Trustee of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.
""
Adopted.
(05-015) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -
PILOT) ; Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in
Enterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III
(Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10
(Exemptions) of Section 18-4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I
(Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) . Introduced.
Councilmember Daysog stated that increasing the Return on
Investment (ROI) to 3% could cause some impacts; encouraged the
Council not to vote tonight and place the matter as an action item
for the next City Council meeting; $782,000 would be received from
Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) by staying at the original proposal
of 1% ROI; if the $782,000 is relayed back to the rate payer, the
monthly bill could be increased from $1.53 to $2.03.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,4,"Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with
direction that the matter be brought back to Council if there would
be any cause for rate increases.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-016 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community
Benefit Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda
Improvement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation)
.
Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-017) Recommendation to reappoint Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet
Laureat.
The Recreation and Parks Director outlined the nomination process.
Lisa Piatetsky, Executive Director Alameda City Art Council, stated
that she looks forward to having Ms. Rudge continue as Alameda's
Poet Laureat.
Mary Rudge, Alameda, submitted a handout i outlined poet activities;
thanked the Council for acknowledging and encouraging poetry.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,5,"Nina Serrano, Alameda County Arts Commission, commended the Council
for having a Poet Laureat.
Mosetta Rose London, Alameda, thanked the Council for the
dedication of the O'Club to Al DeWitt and for placing her poem on a
plaque at the O 'Club; read a poem that she wrote.
Nanette Bradley Deetz, Alameda Island Poets, read a poem that she
wrote about Alameda.
Ken Peterson, Vice President, Alameda Island Poets, stated the
program has been a tremendous success for poetry and for the City.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-018 ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances V04-
0005, V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 to permit the construction of a
rear deck and garage addition that was completed without City
permits. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade
to the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left
side) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an
expansion of the existing single-family dwelling up to the north
(right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is
requesting four (4) Variances to permit the construction of the
work completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda
Municipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30-5.7(c) (2) (6) to construct a rear
deck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to
the south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a
minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve
to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-
5. 7 (e) (1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the
south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three
foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings 3)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d) (7) to construct an attached
garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear
property line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback
is required for rear yards 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-
4. 4 (d) (6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the
main dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback
where a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The
site is located at 913 Oak Street within an R-4, Neighborhood
Residential Zoning District. Applicant/Appellant: Fred and Ursula
Hoggenboom and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,6,"(05-018A) Resolution No. 13810, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances, V04-005,
V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 for the Structural Expansion of a
Single-Family Residence and Construction of Rear Deck at 913 Oak
Street. "" Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a presentation on the background
of the project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was a two-story
structure connected to the house, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was intended to be
more than a one-car garage, to which the Supervising Planner
responded that the plans indicate a one-car garage with storage on
the left side.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was a proposal for the
upstairs portion of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner
responded the photographs show an attic with a couple of chairs and
table.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the garage doors are smaller than the
width of the driveway there is a vent pipe that comes down along
the side of the house and protrudes into the driveway which would
make it very difficult for a car to enter the garage.
The Supervising Planner stated many driveways are challenging in
terms of access.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the intent of
using the garage for the proposed use.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Parking Ordinance requires
that garages be kept free of structures to accommodate a vehicle.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the garage could abut the property
line if detached from the house; once the garage is attached to the
house, there are side and backyard setback issues.
The Supervising Planner stated the Code allows for garages to abut
both the side and rear property lines under certain circumstances
the front of the garage needs to be 75 feet from the front property
line and there needs to be a 5-foot separation between the main
house and the garage a detached garage could comply with the 75-
foot regulation; she is not sure about compliance with the 5-foot
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,7,"separation because there is a small addition at the rear of the
house which might result in less than a 5-foot separation; a
smaller detached garage might require a modest variance.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of the garage,
to which the Supervising Planner responded approximately 300 square
feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of a typical
garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded a one-car garage
would be approximately 200 square feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the garage was larger than a typical
garage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the
residents wanted storage.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the original garage was demolished, to
which the Supervising Planner responded possibly a few years ago.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a deck variance
involved.
The Supervising Planner responded that the deck required a variance
because it is 28 inches from the grade decks 12 inches from the
grade or less are allowed to encroach into yards decks between 12
and 30 inches require a -foot separation from the side and rear
property line; there is an opportunity to modify the deck by either
reducing the height, which would result in a deck that is not level
with the house, or by reducing the size of the deck to provide the
required set back.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a height limit on backyard
fences, to which the Supervising Planner responded the limit is 6
feet for a solid fence and 8 feet for a fence with 2 feet of
lattice on top.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was an 11-foot fence in the
yard, to which the Supervising Planner responded that staff is not
clear who owns the fences that surround the property.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the fence issue would be pursued
regardless of tonight's decision, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Fred Hogenboom, Alameda, and
Ursula Hogenboom, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,8,"Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Raymond A. Pacovsky, Sr., Alameda;
Raymond S. Pacovsky, Jr., Alameda, and Barbara Kerr, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the initiation of construction without permits
makes the permitting process difficult; inquired whether the
Appellant informed the Planning Board that the structure was over
his property line.
The Appellant responded in the negative; stated that the structure
is well within the property line; the structure was moved 2 inches
inward from the original garage.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how tall the spa was from the floor of
the deck to the top of the spa, to which the Appellant responded
three and a half feet at the most.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning staff recommended
dropping the deck approximately 12 inches; inquired whether the 12
inches would equate to two steps.
The Appellant stated that he would need to put in three steps to
lower the deck 12 inches.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether accommodating his wife was part
of the reason for having the deck the same level as the house.
The Appellant responded that his wife has had two back surgeries
and three hip replacements; stairs are difficult for her.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is a two-foot hop to get into the
spa which appears to be more difficult to navigate than the stairs
out of the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that one of the reasons for deck height limits
is because high decks and spas are an intrusion into neighbors'
backyards inquired how the footprint of the original garage was
established.
The Supervising Planner responded that the Appellant submitted
plans in 1991 for foundation work at the front of the house which
indicate that there is a separation between the back of the house;
the then existing garage did not seem to be as close as the current
plans show.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant put siding on the
neighbors' structures, to which the Appellant responded that he put
sheet metal up to prevent rotting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant asked the neighbors
before putting up the sheet metal, to which the Appellant responded
in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the variances are
denied, to which the Supervising Planner responded that two things
could happen; the Appellant could work with staff for a solution
that would allow a garage and deck that is either fully in
compliance or would require a more modest variance or the Appellant
could file a lawsuit against the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant has paid fines, to
which the Supervising Planner responded investigative fees and fees
for working without the proper planning permits have been charged.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution upholding the
Planning Board's decision and denying the Appeal.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated there was only one
decision that the Planning Board could have made given the
circumstances; encouraged the owner to work with the Planning
Department to salvage the intent of the project within the
requirements of the Code.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she assumes that the Appellants had
the best of intentions; the Code clearly specifies detached garage
and addition requirements; the project is attempting to be both an
addition to the house and a garage stated future owners could
convert the garage into a living space.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(05-019) - Discussion regarding assistance for tenants at Harbor
Island Apartments.
Mayor Johnson stated that rent control issues are not on the agenda
tonight but that the public is free to speak under Oral
Communications
The Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation
regarding the assistance provided to the Harbor Island Apartment
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,10,"tenants.
Speakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset
Management Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association;
Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc
Ecology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing
Association; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association
(submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law
Caucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill
Smith, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units
currently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17
units that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units
occupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be
available to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment
tenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he
was not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section
8
tenants that remained in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the
immediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still
occupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance
can be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance
opportunities for the remaining tenants through Community
Development programs or Sentinel Fair Housing.
The Community Development Manager responded that the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair
Housing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved
with a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to
produce new affordable housing units through the Substantial
Rehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to
applicants who previously resided at the Harbor Island Apartments
security deposit assistance programs have been funded in the past
which allowed Housing Authority tenants to borrow money from the
revolving loan fund and repay over time; the fund was depleted as a
result of earlier Section 8 problems; another funding cycle would
become available in July.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,11,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a way to work
with the Apartment Owners' Association to help the remaining
tenants.
The Community Development Manager responded there could be some
coordination for specific interventions that may help the tenants
the cash to provide deposits is a longer-term consideration and
might be more difficult without reprogramming of funds.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review loan possibilities.
The City Manager stated that he would work with staff to find
solutions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated aggressive action is needed to help
the remaining tenants.
Councilmember Daysog stated that most families would like to remain
at the Harbor Island Apartments but the courts have ruled otherwise
and they must move; the City needs to see what can be done to
facilitate the situation in a manner that dignifies the tenants.
the Council needs to pursue the best policy that prevents the
Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-020 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Webster
Street construction has posed a danger to bus passengers at the bus
stops.
The Assistant City Manager stated that the construction work has
been delayed because of the rain; stated he would discuss the
situation with the Public Works Director.
(05-021) Reginald James, Alameda, encouraged the reappointment of
Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet Laureat; stated that he was concerned
about a sign stating that there may be a possible reproductive
harmful environment at the Harbor Island Apartments ; stated that
there should be another meeting of the Harbor Island Task Force.
(05-022) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed earthquakes.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-023) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed Interim City Manager,
Bill Norton.
Mayor Johnson welcomed the Interim City Manager to his first
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,12,"Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMEN'T
(05-024) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular City Council meeting at 11:15 in a moment of silence
and sympathy for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-04,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005- - -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-001) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
(05-002) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed Public
Employment and recruitment of the new City Manager, and Public
Employee Performance Evaluation of the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
January 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
WEDNESDAY - - - JANUARY 5, 2005
-
-
-
5:31
P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present :
Councilmembers / Commissioners / Authority
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider :
(05-025CC/05-001CIC Conference with Real Property Negotiators;
Property : Alameda Naval Air Station, Fleet Industrial Supply
Center; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda, Community Improvement
Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda
Point Collaborative; Under Negotiations Price and terms.
Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission/
Authority gave direction to follow the negotiating approach
recommended by the real property negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
January 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from The
Capital Hilton, 16th and K Street NW, Washington DC only for the
Resolution Opposing the Proposed Casino paragraph no. 05-037].
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-027) Councilmember Matarrese moved that the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of J. Barni [paragraph no. 05-034]; the Public
Hearing to consider amendment to Zoning Map [paragraph no. 05-035];
and the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen
[paragraph no. 05-036] be moved to the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson -
1. ]
(05-028) - Councilmember deHaan moved that discussion regarding
options for relocation assistance legislation [paragraph no. 05- -
040] be heard first on the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the
following voice vote: Ayes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan -2.
Noes : Councilmember Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 2.
[Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-029 ) Proclamation declaring January as Blood Donor Month in
the City of Alameda.
Acting Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Beth
Wren, Donor Recruitment Account Manager.
Ms. Wren thanked the Council for their support of the Red Cross and
announced that there will be a blood drive on Friday in San Leandro
at the Creekside Community Church.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,2,"Michael John Torrey, Alameda, commented on the importance of
donating blood.
(05-030) Presentation by Peter Simon, Dean, College of Alameda and
Liz Sullivan, Organizer with Oakland Community Organizations
regarding the proposed Oakland Aviation High School at the Oakland
Airport. Withdrawn by presenters.
(05-031) Presentation of letters of appreciation to members of the
Alameda Police Department by NC1 Danielle Carter, Recruiter, Naval
Reserve Recruiting Area Pacific.
NC1 Randy Montrose, Recruiter in Charge, Naval Reserve Recruiting
Area Pacific, presented letters of appreciation to members of the
Alameda Police Department ; Sergeant Jill Ottaviano, Alameda Police
Department, accepted the letters of appreciation on behalf of the
Alameda Police Department.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,
including continuing the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of J.
Barni to February 1; continuing the Public Hearing to consider
Amendment to Zoning Map to February 1; and noticing the Public
Hearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen for a later date.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(*05-032) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting of December 21, 2004; the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 4, 2005;
and the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting of January 5, 2005. Approved.
(*05-033) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,049,755.31.
(05-034) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300
square foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to
replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,
with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related
resolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the
C-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning
Districts. Appellant: J. Barni. Continued to February 1, 2005.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,3,"(*05-035) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to
rezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett
Street, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community
Commercial and
(*05-035A) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to
Designate APN 070-170-15, Approximately One-Fifth Acre, from R-5
Hotel Residential to C-C Community Commercial, on Central Avenue at
Everett Street. Continued to February 1, 2005.
(*05-036 - ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Variances, V04-0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and
denial of Major Design Review, DR04-0026, for all development
projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution.
The site is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning
District. The development project includes expansion of the
residence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks.
Approval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30-4.1(d) (3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding
48%) i 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d) (7) and Section 30-2
(Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property
line into the estuary 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(a)
(Roof Eaves) and 30-5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof leaves
above the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side
property line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into
side yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(c) (1) (Rear Yard) ,
Subsection 30-2 (Definitions) (Yard-Rear) and Subsection 30-
4. 1 (d) (7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36-inches in height extend
into the required side and rear yard setbacks 5) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30-5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens
around the patios exceed the maximum permitted - -foot height. The
Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window
encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance,
subject to Design Review approval. Applicant/Appellant: Rita
Mohlen. To be noticed for a later date.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( (05-037) Resolution No. 13811, ""Opposing the Proposed Lower Lake
Rancheria-Koi Nation Casino in the City of Oakland. "" Adopted.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that it is important to make
sure that the Rancheria-Koi Nation does not get the land trust.
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber
supports the Resolution; submitted a packet of information from the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,4,"Chamber's Town Hall Meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to send a strong
message in support of the Resolution opposing the Rancheria-Koi -
Nation proposed casino; Alameda's vote, along with the City of San
Leandro, Alameda County, and the City of Oakland, will send a
strong message to the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated she had the
opportunity to speak with Congressman Stark and that he will
support Alameda in their efforts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the casino proposal is not good
for Alameda, the adjoining wildlife refuge, the City of Oakland and
is a false economy that he would oppose any casino by any tribe in
any urban area; he hopes that there is unanimous support of the
Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he joins his
colleagues in opposing the casino; Council should consider joining
the City of Oakland in pursuing legal issues.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has spoken to the Interim City
Manager and meetings have already taken place Alameda is working
with San Leandro to jointly respond to the environmental documents;
staff is working with the City of Oakland; Alameda County should be
included in pooling resources to save money in the battle opposing
the casino.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there should be an amendment to
the Resolution which would include directing the City Attorney to
work with colleagues in the surrounding jurisdictions to actively
oppose the proposed casino.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Resolution should be very strong,
clear and precise regarding Alameda's position on the casino; that
she would prefer to give separate direction to staff to work with
the surrounding communities and Alameda County.
Acting Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
amicable to giving staff direction, to which Councilmember Daysog
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he commends the Council in taking
the lead; the matter will be an uphill push involving federal
regulations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,5,"Counci lmember Daysog stated that he opposes the proposed casino for
a number of reasons, including crime and the urban planning impacts
on Alameda and other cities. the proposed casino is only one of a
wave of casinos to come which are inappropriate for the area.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Oakland City Council wanted to
ensure that Alameda has no desire to have a casino.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( 05-038) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five-Year Plans.
The Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation on the
housing and community development needs.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report update on the
Section 8 funding.
Jim Franz, American Red Cross, urged the Council to encourage the
continuation of a balance of service provisions that provide a
safety net in the community.
Hugh Cavanaugh, Alameda Food Bank, stated there has been a 50%
growth in the past three years and that he expects the growth to
continue over the next few years.
Steven Currie, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), read
a letter from SSHRB encouraging the Council to continue the safety
net services and programs that empower and support residents'
efforts toward self-sufficiency.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services Human Relations
Board for their work; stated that he looked forward to receiving
the Board's recommendations.
(05-039) Report regarding Corrective and Preventive Plan in
response to the Memorandum on Internal Control Structure.
Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the matter was being discussed
because Council requested staff to respond to questions resulting
from the City's annual audit.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on the amount of the
fund balance deficit ; inquired whether the list of items in the
audit recommendation regarding the budget represents surplus or
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,6,"deficit.
The Finance Director responded that she would provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the
requested information coordinated with the budget information
provided in the first week of February.
Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has become dependant on
Information Technology services system failure would result in
countless hours of lost productivity; Council should carefully
review the costs of addressing the issue and prioritize
accordingly.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Plan makes a lot of the
internal mechanisms of the City transparent; requested information
on the debt reserve compliance issues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether bonds are typically
refinanced without the qualification process.
The Finance Director responded there would be a competitive bid
process if a bond is straight forward and uncomplicated;
complicated bonds would be negotiated; the underwriters would
respond to the Request for Proposal (RFP) stating what could be
done at what price; staff would then recommend a selection to the
governing body.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the bond bidding process be
placed on a future agenda for discussion; stated that it is
important for Council to be involved in the bidding of bonds and in
the decision not to bid.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City's retirement and
health benefit costs have increased dramatically; the City's Public
Employee Retirement System (PERS) contribution increased 615% from
2002 to 2004.
(05-040) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance
legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,
demolition and condominium conversion in the ""West End Atlantic
Corridor Area"" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific
Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).
The Interim City Manager provided a brief outline of the Harbor
Island Apartment eviction process and staff's coordinating efforts
to financially help the remaining tenants move.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,7,"Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council would not be taking
action tonight; public testimony would be taken and the matter
would be continued to the February 1, 2005 City Council Meeting
;
the two meeting nights constitute one meeting; stated speakers can
speak at tonight's meeting or on February 1, but not at both.
Proponents: Regina Tillman, Alameda; Steven Garner, Alameda; Frank
Skiles, Alameda Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda;
Wendy Horikoshi, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda Unified School
District; Reginald James, Alameda; Eve Bach, Alameda; Carl Halpern,
Alameda;Mary Green Parks, Alameda.
Opponents: Dominic Pasanisi, Alameda; Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Fern
Wallace, Alameda; Bernie Fitzgerald, Alameda; Melinda Samuelson,
Alameda; Steven Edrington, Alameda [submitted handout] ; Carol
Martino, Realty World Martino Associates; John Sullivan, San
Leandro; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Thomas S.
Cooke, Manager, Bonanza Apartments; Carmen Lasar, Alameda: and,
Monica Getten, Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Attorney provide an
analysis of existing State law which might overlap with the
proposed ordinance, particularly landlord and tenant relationships
stated that there is plenty of State law protecting individual
tenants in contracts with landlords; he is concerned that there is
not much protection for the community; there is significant impact
on the community and the schools when owners choose to wipe out a
large complex; the matter is not about rent control he has never
supported rent control, which has always been a failure; there has
never been a complaint about rent being too high, only complaints
that rent is too high for the services not being delivered.
Acting Mayor Gilmore requested information on how many properties
have 40 units or more and the total number of units in the ""West
End Atlantic Corridor Area"", and requested staff to provide
information on how the ordinance would work in the absence of rent
control.
(05-041) Ordinance No. 2934, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -PILOT) ;
Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise
Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance
and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10 (Exemptions) of
Section 18-4 - (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers
of
Chapter XVIII ( Sewer and Water) "" Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Ordinance provides some hope to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,8,"close the gap in the budget shortfall; moved final passage of the
Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion Councilmember Daysog, stated that he was concerned
about the possibility of a charge on either cable or electric
bills; it is important to be upfront with the public regarding the
$750,000 and the possibility of recouping the money through rate
charges.
The Interim City Manager stated impacts would be determined through
the Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) budget processi stated that
there are always trade offs in the budget.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he supports the Ordinance, which
is the more conservative approach given the different options
presented.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a good likelihood that
something would need to be massaged; AP&T should not go through a
disproportionate adjustment.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
(05-042) Ordinance No. 2935, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community Benefit
Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda
Improvement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) . ""
Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.
]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-043 - ) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget review
process would take two months.
The Interim City Manager outlined the budget adoption process and
stated the mid-year budget review addresses expenditures and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,9,"revenues through the end of December and should be addressed at the
first or second meeting in February.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:02 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
9
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -6:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:33 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-026) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :
Management and Confidential Employees Association and Police
Association Non-Sworn.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council gave directions
to labor negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 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
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 6:55 P. M.
Acting Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Chair Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.91 Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Chair Gilmore announced that the Commission obtained
briefing from staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-18,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 7:25 P. M.
Acting Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Chair Johnson - 1.
MINUTES
(05-003) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) Meetings of December 7, 2004; the Special Joint City Council
and CIC Meeting of December 21, 2004; and the Special Joint City
Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting
of January 5, 2005. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ] Note: Commissioner
deHaan abstained from voting on the December 7 and 21, 2004
Minutes.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-004) Recommendation to approve a contract with Michael Stanton
Architecture for design review services for the proposed Historic
Alameda Theatre, Parking Structure and Cinema Multiplex Project in
an amount not to exceed $92,500.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the contract is one step closer to
getting the theatre; moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent Chair Johnson - 1.
]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
January 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006--7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:11 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-029) - Mayor Johnson encouraged the Alameda High School students
and Troup 73 Boy Scouts attending the meeting to learn about local
government; stated the City has good job opportunities.
(06-030) Proclamation declaring February 3, 2006 as ""Wear Red for
Women"" Day in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation; stated the proclamation would
be forwarded to the American Heart Association.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *06-031) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on
January 3, 2006. Approved.
( *06-032) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,585,271.93.
( *06-033) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
(*06-034) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
the fifth amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement and fourth
amendment to the Measure B Project Implementation Agreement by and
between the City of Alameda, the Alameda County Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,2,"Authority, the Port of Oakland, and the City of Oakland for the
Cross Airport Roadway Project (Ron Cowan Parkway) Accepted.
( *06-035) - Recommendation to accept and authorize recording a Notice
of Completion for the Bayport Stormwater Pump Station System
Improvements. Accepted.
(*06-036) Recommendation to authorize execution of a lead-based
paint hazard reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program. Accepted.
(*06-037) Resolution No. 13920, ""Approving the Application for
California Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) under the
California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and
Coastal Protection Act of 2002. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-038) Resolution No. 13921, ""Appointing Michael B. Cooper as a
member of the City Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and
(06-038A) Resolution No. 13922, ""Appointing Dora J. Dome as a
member of the City Social Services and Human Relations Board.
""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment to Ms. Dome.
(06-039) Resolution No. 13923, ""Commending Alameda Police
Lieutenant Bob Cranford for his contributions to the City of
Alameda. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read the Resolution.
The Acting Police Chief accepted the Resolution on behalf of
Lieutenant Cranford and expressed Lieutenant Cranford's
appreciation for the Resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,3,"(06-040) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Bayport Alameda Community Building and
Park Project.
The Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director presented drawings
outlining the schematics for the proposed park site.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the restrooms would be separate
from the community building.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the
restrooms would be separate for park access.
Councilmember deHaan stated the adjacent school property area has
asphalt; inquired whether the area would be accessible at all
times, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed trees are
appropriate for the climate, to which the Acting Recreation and
Park Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be adequate drainage.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative; stated adequate drainage has been stressed throughout
the design process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether sprinkler systems would cover the
infield area.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the
specifications would address specific sprinkler systems for the
site.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the older parks have a lot of tree
root issues; inquired whether root guards were considered.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative stated the design team was very conscience of tree
type and placement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage of the
multi-purpose room, to which the Acting Recreation and Park
Director responded 1,700 square feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,4,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other multi-purpose rooms
were comparable in size.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the proposed
multi-purpose room would be larger than most.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what are the anticipated uses for
the baseball and softball fields.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the use would
depend on the age of the participants; stated two practices could
be held at the same time for age groups under 12.
Councilmember deHaan requested an explanation of funding sources.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the funding sources come from
project revenues such as land sale proceeds, residential profit
participation, and tax increment.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether adequate benches would be provided.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative; stated the play areas would have benches also.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Joint Use Agreement was a great
success; the City and School District benefit when resources are
pulled together.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director noted the new park would be
the first park built since Tilden Park in 1993.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-041) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II
(Administration), Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and
Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced.
The Development Services Director provided a brief report.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether neighborhoods, business
districts, and areas at Alameda Point had filming opportunities in
the past, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,5,"Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with having only
one neighborhood representative; he would prefer to have two at- -
large neighborhood representatives neighborhoods are impacted
business district representatives might not be Alameda residents.
Mayor Johnson stated that she understood the Commission's role to
be marketing, not daily management.
The Development Services Director stated the permitting process
would not change deposits are provided for police services.
Mayor Johnson stated that times were restricted when filming was
done on the bridge; police officers were present; pedestrians were
notified of detours; the Commission's role should not be
coordinating the activities.
The Development Services Director stated that the Business
Development Division Coordinator would work as the staff liaison to
coordinate various activities; the Commission would help with
inquiries and marketing; the State has developed a program to
educate neighborhoods and raise awareness.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated filming has been done on her street over
the last few years; the film production company sent someone out to
explain the filming process; stated that the experience was
positive.
Councilmember deHaan stated that his neighborhood had mixed reviews
with the filming processi the neighborhood needs to be involved
with handling location requests.
Mayor Johnson stated having someone familiar with the historical
areas of Alameda is important.
The Development Services Director suggested reducing the number of
members with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three,
adding a resident with knowledge of historic districts, and
changing the ""neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation
Society representative"" to ""neighborhood member""
Councilmember Matarrese suggested all members be Alameda residents,
except business representatives.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some film industry people work for
employers in town and should be able to be considered; the bulk of
the Commission should be Alameda residents.
Mayor Johnson stated that the majority of the Commission should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,6,"Alameda residents.
The Development Services Director stated that the initial terms
could be shortened to no longer than two years.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the Development Services
Director; stated the terms should be staggered and reviewed; the
number of business representatives could be reduced; he would
prefer to eliminate the Chamber of Commerce representative.
The City Attorney outlined the sections of the ordinance to be
revised.
Mayor Johnson clarified that the terms should be a maximum of two
years.
The Development Services Director stated terms could be for one and
two years.
Councilmember deHaan noted he would like the membership brought
down to nine members.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the
proposed amendments : [1) reduce the number of members with working
knowledge of the film/video industry to three; 2) change the
""neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society
representative"" to ""neighborhood member; 3) add a neighborhood
member with knowledge of historic districts; 4) require that the
majority of the commissioners be Alameda residents; and 5) shorten
terms to one and two year staggered terms)
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-042 - ) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs
for the Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.
The Development Services Director provided a brief report.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) , stated that he
supports the recommendations of staff and the Social Services Human
Relations Board (SSHRB) ; APC is building the capacity of the
community; Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance is a
growing issue.
Jim Franz, Alameda, stated he supports continued funding for safety
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,7,"net services special consideration should be given to
organizations that provide education along with services; a
disaster preparedness kit should be provided to low-income
families.
Robert Bonta, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB was pleased to weigh in on
the public service needs employment, transportation, and child
care are needed in addition to improving access to affordable
housing; services are not being maximized; he hopes that SSHRB'S
four focus areas guide in the decision making.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that extraordinary maintenance
issues are coming up for the Housing Authority facilities the
final Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Thursday.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the meeting's focus was to gather
information about extraordinary maintenance.
Mr. Torrey responded that extraordinary maintenance is part of the
focus information on proposed improvements is provided to
residents; resident input is requested.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether extraordinary maintenance funding
was available.
The Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative;
stated Housing Authority reserves and bond funds would pay for
housing complex repairs; a physical needs assessment was conducted
and approved; the physical needs assessment determines the type of
improvements needed over the next 20 years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the SSHRB did a terrific job in
developing criteria; the criteria used to measure the performance
of the organizations receiving the grants should align with the
SSHRB's four focus areas to ensure that the money is well spent and
goals have been achieved; improving access to affordable housing
should include upholding anti-discrimination laws individuals need
to be provided with an avenue to bring discrimination issues to the
proper authorities; SSHRB'S criteria needs to be incorporated into
the measurement of success to ensure that contractors know what is
expected.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback was available on
the Sentinel issue.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,8,"The Development Services Director responded staff was working on a
new scope of work and information would be provided to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a possibility to
receive more than the $1.3 million grant.
The Development Services Director responded next year's total
budget will be approximately $1.5 million with recaptured funds
from loans; the outright grant will be approximately $1.3 million;
program revenues and reclaimed dollars will be approximately
$200,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the CDBG funding takes care
of the Housing Authority's needs, to which the Acting Assistant
City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Development Services
Department's funding portion takes care of housing over and above
the Housing Authority.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the majority of CDBG funding is for housing and rental
rehabilitation.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that the Housing Authority
has used CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment funds in the past but does
not plan to use the funding this year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone's needs would be left out
with the proposed Action Plan, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether community service needs are
reviewed periodically.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated Alameda goes beyond what is required; stated safety net
provider participation is unbelievable.
Mayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB and staff for all the hard work.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,9,"(06-043) Brien Burroughs, Glass Eye Media, stated that he is
producing an independently financed television pilot at City Hall
on Thursday and Friday barriers sometimes come up when filming at
government sites; all his contacts in Alameda have been great ;
stated he appreciates the support.
(06-044) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated there is corruption in the
Planning Department a resolution was passed by the Council on June
21, , 2005 which required the owner of a vacant lot adjacent to his
home to conduct a specific soil test prior to receiving design
review; the testing was submitted; the design review was approved
and has been appealed to the Planning Board; he is unable to get a
fair hearing with the Planning Board; staff refuses to provide
accurate information; the City denies using the wrong section of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the
development; he received a $100 invoice to file a new form with the
State; he received a $1600 invoice, which includes over five hours
to discuss the project with City Attorney's office; the facts are
undisputable; urged members of the Council to appeal the decision
of the Planning Board.
Mayor
Johnson stated that Mr. Lynch should communicate his concerns
with the City Manager.
Mr. Lynch stated that he spoke with the Acting Assistant City
Manager on Thursday and has not received a reply.
The Acting Assistant City Manager stated that he spoke to Mr.
Lynch, the Planning Department staff, and City Attorney's office
last week; he still has one more person to contact; he will get
back to Mr. Lynch.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-045
-
)
Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission. Continued.
(06-046) Councilmember deHaan stated streetscape funding was
discussed at the last Council meeting he hopes that electrical
provisions have been included to allow for embedded pedestrian
lights [ on Park Street] between Central Avenue and Santa Clara
Avenue when funding is available.
(
(06-047) Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of homes have been fire
damaged over a period of time; inquired whether remediation is
required within a certain amount of time; stated areas are an
eyesore and a nuisance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,10,"Mayor Johnson stated that she was concerned with the building at
the corner of Central Avenue and Park Street the boards are down,
but nothing is being done; inquired whether more controls are
needed to ensure that owners remedy buildings within a certain
amount of time.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on applicable
ordinances.
The City Manager stated that information would be provided to the
Council.
(06-048) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that a vehicle inventory
was discussed a few months ago; he would like Council to consider
establishing a vehicle use resolution or policy so that the City
can set an example; the resolution should include how vehicles are
purchased, where to purchase alternative fuel vehicles such as
natural gas and electric, and City vehicle use to reduce the number
of single occupancy trips; requested that the use policy be brought
back to the Council for consideration; the purchase of vehicles
should follow.
(06-049) Councilmember deHaan stated vehicle inventory is
important ; he would prefer a separate line item in the budget to
indicate the amount spent up front excess vehicles were auctioned
over the last three or four months; a number of vehicles are no
longer usable; the number of excess vehicles and future needs
should be reviewed; uniform vehicle markings are extremely
important.
The City Manager stated that the replacement criteria were being
reviewed; a general policy for alternative fuel would be provided
to Council.
Councilmember deHaan congratulated Alameda Power and Telecom for
using hybrid cars; stated an inventory should be established
vehicles should be replaced in a logical manner.
(06-050 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that the athletic facilities' use
policy should be brought to the Council for adoption by resolution
or ordinance; the current policy is not compliant.
The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of rewriting
the policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer a formalized Council
resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,11,"ADJOURNMENT
(06-051) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 9:40 p.m. in a moment of silence for City
Employee Matt Plumlee's family loss.
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
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006- -6:05 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note : Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:35 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-025) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda.
Rosemary McNally stated that she was not a party to the lawsuit,
but had followed the Cineplex project since the Historical Advisory
Board meeting in 2005; cited the Indemnificatior Clause in the
Disposition and Development Agreement with the developer, Kyle
Connor questioned why the City is paying for Mr. Connor's defense
costs when the City says it does not have enough money for
services.
The City Attorney responded that the developer has his own
attorney; the City has a large investment risk in the project and
chose to retain its own counsel in order to best protect its own
interests in the project.
Ms. McNally thanked the Council for clarification and submitted
copy of her statement for the record.
(06-026) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 9:45 p.m.
(06-027) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney. .
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
Special Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,13,"and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council discussed the case and stated staff would
provide an Off-Agenda Report on the upcoming process; regarding
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association, the Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators;
regarding City Attorney, the Council gave direction to labor
negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006 -7:29 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call -
Present :
ouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent : None.
Agenda Item
(06-028) Resolution No. 13919, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Repair
of the Bay Farm Island Seawall Dike, along Shoreline Park, and
Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requested funding was
for interim repair, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired when full repair would be
completed and what the plan was for preventive maintenance.
The Public Works Director responded the schedule for the full
repair was being reviewed; larger ripraps would be added to
strengthen the armoring of the slope; the design process would take
approximately two to three months because a lot of surveying is
required; funding is the big issue; the estimate is approximately
$2 million for the riprap.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether information has been provided to the
public.
The Public Works Director responded the area has been barricaded,
and warning signs have been posted.
Mayor Johnson requested that additional signs be posted along
Shoreline Park to provide information on the seawall restoration
and to thank the public for their patience.
Councilmember deHaan stated the damage occurred because of high
tides ; inquired whether further deterioration was evident.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,15,"The Public Works Director stated the entire length of the seawall
has been inspected; the interim repair would take care of
significant deterioration; the intent is to beat the high tides
forecasted for the end of the month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether erosion occurred in other
areas.
The Public Works Director responded the $500,000 should cover all
areas that need repair.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether periodic inspections are conducted.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated future
periodic inspections are being considered.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Governor added Alameda
County to the disaster list; inquired whether funding would be
available for the repairs.
The Public Works Director responded that staff was working with the
County and Office of Emergency Services (OES) to secure Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the deterioration was
standard or the result of circumstances.
The Public Works Director responded that the current situation is
extremely accelerated; a resident raised the issue in March; staff
examined the area in April and determined that immediate attention
was not needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated hopefully budget issues would not
prevent performing a temporary fix if the City witnessed some
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that issues should be called to the Council's
attention if something similar arises.
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Public Works Director for planting
trees in front of Alameda College on Appezzato Parkway.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-01-31,16,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:11 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
January 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:21 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-047 - ) Proclamation declaring January 30, 2005 through April 4,
2005 as A Season for Nonviolence in the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Pat Dilks
of the Children's Learning Center representing the Youth
Collaborative.
Ms. Dilks thanked the Council for their support.
(05-048) - Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager submitted a timeline and provided an update on
the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the construction budget would be
submitted, to which the Project Manager responded that the
construction budget was set by the $17.4 million contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the spending schedule would be
provided, to which the Project Manager responded that a schedule
would be provided this month.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the steel prices were locked in
before the end of 2004, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated the rebar subcontractor withdrew because of
bankruptcy.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 05-049],
and the Resolution Authorizing the Application to the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission [paragraph no. 05-054] were removed from
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,2,"the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(05-049) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on January 18, 2005.
Mayor Johnson requested that the minutes of the Regular City
Council Meeting should be revised to reflect that she was not
absent.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Special City Council
Meeting and revised Regular City Council Meeting.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-050) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,627,942.61.
(*05-051) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending December 31, 2004. Accepted.
(*05-052) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Half
Moon Bay, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(*05-053) Resolution No. 13812, ""Authorizing the Application to
CalTrans for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant for
Improvements to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Approach.
Adopted.
(05-054) Resolution No. 13813, ""Authorizing the Application to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for a Regional Bicycle and
Pedestrian Program Grant for the Cross Alameda Trail Phase I.""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the purchase of the right-of-
way for the linear park was part of the Alameda Belt Line property,
to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Attorney stated that the Alameda Belt Line litigation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,3,"involves the exercise of the right to purchase the entire Alameda
Belt Line property, not just the 22-acre site.
Mayor Johnson stated that the purchase of the right-of-way for the
linear park was separate from the down zoned area [Measure D,
2000].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the curb on Ralph Appezzato
Memorial Parkway was under the City's jurisdiction, to which the
Public Works Director responded the street from curb to curb is
within the public right-of-way
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether improvements have been made
to the area, to which the Public Works Director responded that
there were no improvements on the south side of Appezzato Memorial
Parkway because the City only owns the area to the curb; the
Alameda Belt Line property runs from the back of the curb to the
fence line.
 ouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-055) Resolution No. 13814, ""Approving Submittal of a Revised
Application, Incorporating a Flat Parking Lot and Budget
Adjustments, to the Office of Library Construction Under the
California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library
Construction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-056) - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300
square foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to
replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,
with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related
resolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the
C-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning
Districts. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. Applicant : Park Centre
Animal Hospital.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief overview of the project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether rezoning from R-5 to C-C would
make the existing property conform to the General Plan designation,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,4,"4
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,5,"receive notification live within 300 feet regardless of the Everett
Street or Central Avenue address.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether someone would be unaware that
Central Avenue was involved if they did not review the plans, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether use permits run with the
current proprietor or with the property, to which the Supervising
Planner responded that use permits run with the land; stated use
permits do not change the zoning.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the notice is valid, to which the
City Attorney responded that the notice complies with the
requirements of the Municipal Code and the current practices of the
Planning Department.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the dog walking
practices.
Mr. Busse stated that currently the dogs are walked on the existing
bank property as well as in the neighborhood.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether dogs are boarded, to which
Mr. Busse responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is design latitude on
the Central Avenue side, to which Mr. Busse responded enhancements
have been made; additional latticework is being added.
Councilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with trees covering
the sign.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether landscaping was one foot
from the lot line and five feet from the edge of the sidewalk.
Mr. Busse responded that there would be a five foot two inch
landscape buffer from the existing sidewalk.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the project Design Review
is the only issue before the Council; good improvements have been
made.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the
notification.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the project should be re-
noticed, and Design Review should be sent back to the Planning
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,6,"Board.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to go on record as
liking the design, especially the changes the architect has made
;
she is concerned about the noticing issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore; not
including the address on Central Avenue in the notice may have
caused confusion; she feels badly for the business because of the
project delay.
Councilmember Daysog stated that speakers mentioned that the design
does not fit the residential character of the neighborhood;
arguments could be made that the design is an improvement over the
existing structure; the project is a positive step.
Councilmember deHaan moved that the matter be sent back to the
Planning Board for proper notification.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmembers Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog, and Mayor Johnson went
on record that the only reason the matter was being sent back to
the Planning Board was to allow proper notification.
(05-057 - ) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to
rezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett
Street, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community
Commercial; and
(05-057A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Certain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential Zoning
District to C-C (Community Commercial Zoning District, for that
Property Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Not
introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of rezoning) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal Hospital.
Opponents (Not in favor of rezoning) : John Barni, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,7,"Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the
Planning Board for proper notification.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m.
*
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct the City
Manager to prepare an ordinance [paragraph no. 05-058] would be
heard before the discussion regarding options for relocation
assistance [paragraph no. 05-059].
(05-058 - ) Recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an
ordinance establishing a Theatre Combining District in Chapter XXX,
Development Regulations.
Lars Hanson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , stated that
PSBA supports establishment of the ordinance.
Mayor Johnson announced that the following speakers are in favor
but would not comment Pauline Kelley, Alameda Abigail Wade,
Regency Antiques; Nick Petrulakis, Books Inc. ; Elizabeth Pinkerton,
Dog Bone Alley; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether accepting
the staff recommendation allows the Central Cinema to continue
operating, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(05-059) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance
legislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,
demolition and condominium conversion in the ""West End Atlantic
Corridor Area"" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific
Avenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).
Proponents : Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Donald Cummingham,
Alameda ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association
(HITA) ; Motoe Yamada, Alameda; Emily, Lin; Michael Wharton, Alameda
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,8,"Unified School District i Gerbrehiwot Tesfandrias, Alameda Michael
John Torrey, Alameda. Samya Ahmed, HITA; David de la Torre,
Alameda; Lorraine Lilley, HITA; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Lynette
Lee, Renewed Hope; Isolina Cadle, HITA; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista
United Methodist Church; Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Arnold
Fong, Alameda resident and RPO; Lily Lueng, Alameda.
Neutral Dr. Mary Abu-saba, Alameda; Deborah James, Alameda; Craig
Miott, Alameda.
Opponents: Jack Sullivan, Alameda resident and Rental Property
Owner (RPO) i Jun Saraspi, RPO; John Goerl, RPO; Shirley Green,
Alameda resident and RPO; Paul Anders, Alameda resident and RPO;
Merle Pagel, Alameda resident and RPO; Maewood Zarback, Alameda
resident and RPO; Roger Armstrong, RPO; Rosemary McNally, Alameda
resident and RPO; Angela McIntyre, Alameda Association of Realtors;
Harry McMillan, RPO; Ann O'Rourke, Alameda resident and RPO; former
Councilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Chris Mazala, Mason Management
Don Camara, Alameda resident and RPO; Lisa Fowler, Gallagher and
Lindsey Eileen Walker, Alameda resident and President of Alameda
Association of Realtors; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Dave Gallagher, RPO;
Hanna Fry, Alameda resident and RPO; Mark Palmer, Alameda resident
and RPO; Ellen Purdy, Harbor Bay Realty; Ed Murphy, Alameda
resident and RPO; Arch Woodliff, Alameda resident and RPO; Suha
Erdem, Alameda resident and RPO; Cynthia Ridenour, Alameda resident
and RPO; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Thomas Cooke,
Bonanza Apartments; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates;
Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Steve Edrington, Rental
Housing Association of Northern Alameda County.
(05-060) After speaker Cynthia Ridenour, Councilmember Matarrese
moved that the Regular Meeting be continued past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that as a graduate student he worked on
a project analyzing the impacts of rent control in Berkeley and
Santa Monica; in both cases, rent control laws did not help the
people; he is concerned that someone would use the proposed
ordinance to file a lawsuit for reasons having little or nothing to
do with the Harbor Island Apartment situation; the emphasis of the
proposed ordinance is wrong by focusing on landlord/tenant
relations; involvement in landlord/tenant relations is done
informally via the Rent Review Advisory Committee; requested that
staff, landlords and residents work together to develop something
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,9,"other than an ordinance that speaks to short notice mass evictions
and voluntary relocation assistance.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to determine how local and State
statutes could be put to better use; stated the maintenance and
quality of life issues at the Harbor Island Apartments could have
been handled better.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has not met one person who
has defended the 15 Asset Management Group's action; requested
staff to review whether there is a hole in the condominium
conversion ordinance and whether there is an attempt to circumvent
the ordinance; the proposed ordinance does not address the impact
of not providing a reasonable, fair amount of public notice for
vacating the complex completely; the Alameda Unified School
District is trying to close a gap of over a million dollars ;
perhaps the 15 Asset Management Group should pay an impact fee; the
Harbor Island Apartment issue will not be resolved soon; encouraged
investment and improvement in the West End; stated process should
include social impacts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the goal should be preventing a Harbor
Island Apartment situation from happening again; the question is
how to go about it; the City needs to work to enforce current laws
the former residents suffered greatly; West End residents need to
know that they are just as important as residents in other sections
of the City; landlords have stated that the proposed ordinance will
not work from their standpoint i challenged the landlords to work
with the City and the residents and come up with a way of
preventing the situation from happening again; stated steps need to
be put in place to have it happen sooner rather than later.
Councilmember deHaan stated that redeveloping the West End will
cause displacement; a good social eye is needed for what is
occurring the City knew that something was going astray; a wedge
has been driven between the landlords and tenants; the size of the
Harbor Island Apartments makes it difficult to manage; the property
cannot afford to be kept out of the rental market; that he does not
believe the ordinance or moratorium are the answer.
Councilmember Daysog stated the concerns that people had regarding
mandatory relocation assistance could be the same concerns
regarding mandatory impacts; the City needs to be creative in
following through with a voluntary relocation program.
Mayor Johnson stated that she had no expectation that the Council
could create an ordinance tonight ; she does not think the drafted
ordinances are the answers; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,10,"Gilmore's challenge to have property owners and residents work
together and provide suggestions; no one in Alameda has not been
offended by the actions of 15 Asset Management Group.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking for some type of
quantifiable action in going forward; over the last year and a
half, Council had knowledge of the crime situation around the
complex; Housing Authority reports stated Section 8 units were
being decertified because standards were not being met; requested
the City Manager to compile indicators such as crime, Code
Enforcement complaints, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-
certification which would allow Council to set a policy on how to
react should there be another large complex that is spinning in the
same fashion as the Harbor Island Apartments situation.
Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that have not
been strongly enforced to allow Council to set a policy on
enforcement.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review the Harbor Island
Apartments in relation to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-11.3
Mayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that apply to
Alameda, whether State or local.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review how other
cities have utilized the State ordinances and whether other cities
have been effective.
Mayor Johnson stated that it is important for the Council to set a
policy utilizing existing ordinances.
Councilmember Daysog requested feedback from staff on his draft
voluntary relocation assistance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that going through the process has raised
public
awarenessi a committee of tenant and landlord
representatives should be formed to keep the momentum going and
discuss the issues; landlords have been reactionary to tenants'
ideas; landlords and tenants should work more cooperatively in
developing ideas for preventing the situation from occurring again.
Mayor Johnson requested that suggestions on the framework of the
committee be brought back to Council at the next City Council
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that staff follow up on direction provided
tonight.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,11,"Counci lember Matarrese clarified that the motion was to direct
staff to: 1) provide a compilation of indicators relating to crime,
Code Enforcement, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-certification
which would enable the Council to develop a policy on how to react,
and 2) provide a framework for a committee which would include
defining what happened at the Harbor Island Apartments and how to
prevent the situation from happening again.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog's voluntary relocation
assistance draft should be included.
Counci lmember Daysog stated the proposed committee could review his
suggestion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-061) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated the
City Attorney received a copy of the State law on rentals two years
agoi noted Committees, except those she has chaired, often do not
sunset on time; stated landlords would get together to respond to
Councilmember Gilmore's challenge [to come up with a something to
prevent a Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again]
.
(05-062) Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda, thanked Councilmember
Daysog for returning property he left in the Chambers at a previous
meeting.
(05-063) Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that
he could provide Council with copies of the rental housing laws.
(05-064) Arch Woodliff, Alameda, noted that he chaired the
committee which dealt with rent in 1974 and first founded the Rent
Review Advisory Committee.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the
Social Service Human Relations Board. [Partial term expiring June
30, 2007]
Mayor Johnson nominated Dennis Hanna for appointment to the SSHRB.
(05-066) - ) Vice Mayor Gilmore request staff to provide information on
the cost for filing an appeal; stated Mr. Barni indicated his
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,12,"Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 -6:45 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
( 05-044) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Younger-Wunar, Inc. V. City of Alameda.
(05-045) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Gallagher & Burke, Inc. V City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Younger-Wunar Inc. V.
City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions
were given to Legal Counsel; and regarding Gallagher & Burke, Inc.
V. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions
were given to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 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
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members
Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEMS
JOINT ACTION:
(05-046CC/05-005CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly
Financial Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that the report
shows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the
Fiscal Year and recommended adjustments.
The Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view;
matters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8
million deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented
at the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the estimated
revenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget
the estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and
appropriations.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired how much of
the projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which
the Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether
there would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate.
The Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that a budget
adjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of
$4.8 million.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious
problem.
  ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of
the staff recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,15,"Councilmember/Commissioner/BoardMember Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION:
05-006CIC) Resolution #05-133, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First
Amendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS,
Inc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of
Alameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs) Adopted.
Lars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the
resolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic
Alameda theatre.
Duane Watson encouraged building the parking structure.
Debbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in
moving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the
Alameda theatre, and the new theatre complex.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre
project has been a long time coming.
Chair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the
theatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be
taken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,16,"Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-01,17,"MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05 5-01) - Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement
Corporation Meeting of February 3, 2004.
Board Member Daysog moved approval of the minutes.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Board Members Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions : Board Member deHaan -
1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual
Meeting at 8:04 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Alameda Public Improvement
Corporation
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Annual Meeting
Alameda Public Improvement Corporation
February 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note:
Mayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02
p.m. to travel on City business. ]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-072) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to
designate the City of Alameda as an official ""Coast Guard City. ""
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Hadi Monsef
and Barbara Price representing the Alameda Council of the Navy
League. Ms. Price presented a book on the history of the Coast
Guard to the Mayor and City on behalf of Coast Guard Admiral
Breckenridge.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with
a correction to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting minutes.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *05-073) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 1, 2005. Approved.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the February 1 regular
meeting minutes adjourn time be corrected to indicate a.m. instead
of p.m.
( *05-074) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,200,868.59.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,2,"(*05-075) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the second calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.
( *05-076) Resolution No. 13815, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
(*05-077) Resolution No. 13816, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) .
Adopted.
(*05-078) Resolution No. 13817, ""Amending the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by
Establishing a Salary Range for the Position of Inventory Control
Clerk. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-079) Resolution No. 13818, ""Appointing Dennis J. Hanna as a
Member of the Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Hanna with a Certificate of Appointment.
(05 -080 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five
to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created;
Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2-9.3
(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission). Introduced.
Mayor Johnson stated that she suggested the membership increase
because there is a lot of upcoming activity at the golf course,
including the new clubhouse; having two more members would help
with the workload; the Golf Commission Chair supports the idea.
The Interim City Manager stated the golf course has become a large
operation; the golf budget is over $5 million; there will be major
changes at the golf course that require financial overview in the
next few years.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission was
lowered from nine to seven members; the Recreation and Park
Commission has five members; inquired whether the membership of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,3,"Recreation and Park Commission should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; commissions are
established by ordinance and Council has flexibility to make
changes boards established by Charter would be difficult to
change.
Councilmember deHaan stated having seven members provides
flexibility to bring people with different expertise aboard.
Mayor Johnson concurred the matter should be reviewed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-081) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$2,110,000, including contingencies to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for
Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, Phase I, No. P. W.
10-02-13, and authorize the allocation of additional funds from the
Merged Areas Bond Issuance of 2003.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the new
streetlights will look like 1927 streetlights on the outside, but
are state-of-the-art inside; hopefully, a later phase to complete
Alameda Avenue will happen quickly; urged Council to approve the
Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with how well the Webster
Street Streetscape project is going; that she has not received any
complaints.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City decided to replace the entire
sidewalk on Webster Street; inquired how the decision was made
regarding Park Street.
The Public Works Director responded the entire sidewalk on Park
Street is not being replaced due to cost and basements extending
into the public right of way; stated replacing the Park Street
sidewalks would require roofs to be built above basements, which
would be very expensive; PSBA agrees with the approach.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,4,"money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin
earning interest to mitigate the reduction.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds inquired
how the liability would be covered.
The Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,5,"the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover
any State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state
the bondholders recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the
State.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no
impact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to
deal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year.
Mayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was
very interesting and a good strategy.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( (05-083) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue
and appropriations.
The Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget
adjustments.
Mayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the
Alameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.
The Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing
emergency medical coordination.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance
overview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS,
which is the medical authority responsible for administering
licenses, classes, and protocol the fee is for overhead and
quality assurance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS
budget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives
a copy of the budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which
the Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to
which the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,6,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the
County reviews compliance with protocols and licensing.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to
determine why it is so expensive to be part of the system.
The Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with
more detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in
mutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual
aid assistance from outside agencies.
The Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to
enter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response
(AMR) provide backup AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and
Alameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided
and received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in
Oakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often
times it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR
takes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the
Advanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money
back from the County contract.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for
ambulance service is set by the County contract the City should
charge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher
than the cap set by the County the City should review the rates
charged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to
charge more to recover service costs from users.
The Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum
charge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to
charge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not
pay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not
charged more and only charges a prevailing rate.
The Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments.
In response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased
permit fee could be charged for providing premium service since
there is such a high demand, the Interim City Manager stated there
is an expedited permit fee and some developers have paid for an
outside contract service that the City administers.
The Interim City Manager continued his review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,7,"Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors
would remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total
reduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions
in non-departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983 the
budget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on
the General Fund reserves for the fiscal year.
Mayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December;
inquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million.
The Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had
expenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased
another $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes
(PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council,
resulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate
funds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager,
Chinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately
$256,000 impact.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional
Firefighters would have an impact on overtime.
The Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would
start the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in
salaries for the five Firefighters in the academyi there will not
be a net benefit for the current fiscal year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in
future years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was
required to be set aside.
The Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside
for accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the
total accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10
million.
The Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5
million required in set aside and removing loans to other funds,
the amount remaining is $8.9 million; if action is not taken, the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,8,"reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State
governments have deficits other cities are making staff
reductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per
month; Alameda's financial problems are not unique the problem is
due to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in
the PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments
have not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be
raised significantly.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being
made without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has
been a dramatic shift in the State's economy ; the budget has to be
brought in line with economic realities; the City might face
equally or more difficult choices in the next budget the City
needs to focus on core services; the ten-year budget forecast will
be integral in forming the next budget the reserves do not allow
the City to postpone dealing with the situation.
Councilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to
implement budget changes the budget would evolve over the next
four or five years; the City needs to be prepared.
Councilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were
needed; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent
overtime and short staffing issues.
The Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two
positions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but
he is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is
absolutely required.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in
police and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the
streets.
The Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced
in a department without recognizing that there will be an impact;
both the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort
to have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay
in processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill
following officer promotions, there will be an impact.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should hear about the
impacts; there will be ramifications to service; five Firefighters
would be hired instead of eleven; inquired whether other vacancies
are projected in the Fire Department.
The Interim City Manager responded only eleven vacancies are known.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,9,"9
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City
has to take these stepsi requested that staff monitor service
levels: if damage is being done and appropriations are needed,
information should be brought to Council before the situation is an
emergency the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its
services; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft
priorities; Council has laid out priorities the park and library
services are intangibles that prevent the need for additional
police officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to
ensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole.
Acting Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity
of the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of
the issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the
best decision given the resources available; the City needs to
continue to get out the word because sooner or later the average
citizen will be impacted.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider
direction to review terminating the police boat water services;
stated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay
property taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as
well; that he would like to have options to help find an
alternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or
some other service levy that can be presented to the public; the
matter should be brought back to the Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million
budget for public safety; stated that he understands the one-time
expenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1. 4 million hole
in the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA
budget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is
reviewing alternatives.
The Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the
ARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development
Services Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA
budget as much as possible, as soon as possible; the current ARRA
budget cannot be sustained; one or two months into the next fiscal
year, keeping the operation going will be problematic.
Councilmember Daysog stated problems in the ARRA budget could seep
into to General Fund budget.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a review of
the ARRA budget shortly, to which the Interim City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,11,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-084) - Michael John Torrey, Alameda, noted a Calgrant workshop
would be held February 22 and a community meeting would be held
February 23 to discuss extraordinary maintenance projects around
the West End.
(05-085) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, encouraged
residents and workers in Alameda to shop in Alameda stated sales
tax revenues need to increase.
(05-086) Reginald James, West Alameda Teen Club, invited everyone
to attend the West Alameda Teen Club black history basketball event
February 24 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chipman Middle School.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-087) Acting Mayor Gilmore stated an Association of Bay Area
Governments meeting on April 28 in San Francisco is about Casinos
on the Bay Area Landscape; suggested that a Councilmember attend
the meeting or staff attend, if a Councilmember cannot, to listen
to the discussion.
(05-088 ) Councilmember Daysog stated the last representative to
the League of California Cities was Barbara Kerr; that he has been
involved in the East Bay Division employer subcommittee; that he
would be willing to be the City's representative.
Acting Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be placed on a
future agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:18 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
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M.
Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at
6:20 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmember/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor/Chair
Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-070CC/05-007CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation Name of cases Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor/Chair Johnson
announced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore
adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-02-15,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:30 P.M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-071) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations:
Management and Confidential Employees Association, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Police Association Non-
Sworn.
Prior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor Johnson announced
that the Council obtained a briefing and instructions were given to
Labor Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
meeting at 7:25 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
February 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005- -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-091) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving
Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no. 05-096] would be addressed at
a
later date.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,
excluding the Resolution Approving Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no.
05-096].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *05-092) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority Meeting held on February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council and CIC Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting and
the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2005.
Approved.
( *05-093) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,454.99.
(*05-094) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the third calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.
(
*05-095) Recommendatior to authorize the Mayor, City Manager
and/or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination
of the Community Development Block Grant Program and related
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
1",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,2,"federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. Accepted.
(05-096) Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for
a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. Not heard.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-097) - Resolution No. 13820, ""Commending Recreation and Park
Director Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read the Resolution and presented it to Suzanne Ota;
stated that Ms. Ota has done an outstanding job.
The Interim City Manager presented Ms. Ota with flowers.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she started her service to the City
working with the Recreation and Park Department she always
appreciated Ms. Ota's enthusiasm, energy and ""can do"" spirit.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Ms. Ota brings so much joy to so
many parts of the community.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City would miss Ms. Ota; as
a citizen as well as a Councilmember, he appreciates the great job
that Ms. Ota has done.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Ms. Ota should feel very
comfortable in her accomplishments.
(05-098) Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05-0001/R 05-0001
Zoning Text Amendment/Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay
District and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater
Overlay Districti and
(05-098A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection
30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T-
Theater Combining District) ; and Repealing Subsection 30-6.23(2) (b)
of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and
Rezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include
the Theater Combining District. Continued to March 15, 2005.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
2",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,3,"(05-099) Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies
to prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in
the City of Alameda.
The Interim City Manager outlined the suggested structure and
mission of the Task Force; stated the Task Force would meet on a
regular basis and report back to the Council within 90 days.
Carol Martino, Alameda, stated that she would like to serve on the
Task Force.
Steven Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that the
matter should not overly politicized to ensure progress is made and
there is a balanced committee.
Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association, volunteered to serve on
the Task Force.
Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenants Association, stated that new
laws are necessary to protect tenants; suggested that the committee
have two Harbor Island Tenant Association representatives and two
ar-large tenants.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the nominations would be made.
Mayor Johnson responded that she would like to receive input from
Council; that Council should submit names for potential Task Force
members.
Councilmember Daysog stated there should be a specific period of
time for application submittals.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Task Force would be an informal
committee, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the
affirmative.
(05-100) Ordinance NO. 2936, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to
Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created
Composition), 2-9.2 (Membership Appointment ; Removal) and 2-9.3
(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission) Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
3",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,4,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-101) Martin White stated that the Development Services
Department provided moderate income housing for the Bayport housing
development at 110% of the median income but cut off at 80% of the
median income; redevelopment law does not allow for cut offs;
stated he met with the Director of Development Services about the
matter.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide Council with a report on
the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that moderate income, by definition, is
80% to 110% of median.
(05-102) - Hallemariam Alema, Alameda, stated that he won the
lottery for moderate income housing in the Bayport housing
development; he has an income of $64,000 and has been disqualified.
Mr. Alema's wife stated that the Development Services Director is
unable to provide reasons for the disqualification.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the couple won the lottery; the
range for moderate income is 110%; $64,000 is below the range and
is the reason for disqualification.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-103) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
League of California Cities East Bay Division representative.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog has volunteered to
serve as the City's representative and Vice Mayor Gilmore has
volunteered to serve as the alternate.
louncilmember Matarrese moved that Councilmember Daysog serve as
the City's S representative for the League of California Cities East
Bay Division and that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the alternate.
Mayor Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the East Bay Division meeting he
attended two weeks ago was very nice.
(05-104) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looks forward to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
March 1, 2005
4",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,5,"providing Council with a report on the AC Transit Council Liaison
Committee Meeting held last Thursday.
(05-105) - Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan
wanted the matter of increasing the number of members on the
Recreation and Parks Commission brought back to Council.
Councilmember deHaan responded that the Commission could address
the matter.
(05-106) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased that trash
containers are being changed at bus stops and throughout the
business districts; inquired what was the reason for the change and
who provides the maintenance; that he is concerned that the
surfaces could be graffitied.
The Interim City Manager responded that City staff maintains the
containers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether maintenance is part of the
garbage contract, to which the Interim City Manager responded the
garbage contractor empties the containers.
(05-107) Mayor Johnson requested that the theatre design
guidelines and schedule update be brought back to Council at the
next City Council Meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:47 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
March 1, 2005
5",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,6,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY MARCH 1, 2005 - - 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(05 5-089 - ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1429
Oak Street; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and County of
Alameda; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:50 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
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,7,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:40 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(05-008) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 1435
Webster Street (Webster Parking Lot D - APN 074-0427-005-01) ;
Negotiating parties : John E. Farrar Living Trust and Community
Improvement Commission Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to
Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 1, 2005 - - - 6:50 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Commissioner
Torrey, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
( 05-090 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of cases : Housing and Urban Development [Claim No. 178760 and
177448]
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the
Council/Commission gave direction to Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005--7:27P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 8:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-009) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
(CIC) Meetings of January 18, 2005; the Special Joint City Council,
CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting of
February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC
Meeting of February 15, 2005. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Chair Johnson abstained from voting on the
January 18 Minutes. ]
AGENDA ITEM
(05-010) Recommendation to award a grant in an amount not to exceed
$5,000 from Business and Waterfront Improvement Project tax
increment funds for the purchase of a used vehicle to tow the Green
Machine operated by the West Alameda Business Association for the
cleaning of the public sidewalk and to authorize the Executive
Director to execute a standard grant agreement.
Chair Johnson stated that Robb Ratto, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) requested that she convey that PSBA is in full
support of the staff recommendation.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , urged
support of the staff recommendation; stated that additional areas
would be cleaned; noted there will be a Farmer's Market every
Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. starting June 8, 2005.
Chair Johnson congratulated WABA for the success of the streetscape
project.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
Special Meeting
Community Improvement commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-01,10,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement commission
March 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-110) - Mayor Johnson presented the Resolution Commending Captain
Rich McWilliams [paragraph no. 05-112] prior to the Consent
Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-111) Proclamation declaring March 2005 as Red Cross Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Jim Franz,
American Red Cross.
Mr. Franz stated that the Red Cross has a wonderful partnership
with the City; noted that Mayor Johnson accepted the Good Neighbor
Award for the City's support of the Red Cross a couple of months
ago.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-112) Resolution No. 13821, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Captain Rich McWilliams for His Contributions to the
City of Alameda. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Captain Rich
McWilliams.
Captain McWilliams thanked the Council for the kind words; stated
that it has been a pleasure to work for the City.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to adopt Zoning
Regular Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,2,"Ordinance Text Amendment ZA03-0003 [paragraph no. [05-115 ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*05-113 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
Meeting, and Regular City Council Meeting held on March 1, 2005.
Approved.
(*05-114) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,660,114.93.
(05-115) Recommendation to adopt Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment,
ZA03-0003, - Citywide Guide to Residential Design.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated that the guidelines are a good
tool for the public and staff to utilize; urged adoption.
Elizabeth Krase, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ,
stated that the guidelines are long overdue; urged adoption.
Kevin Frederick, AAPS, urged adoption of the guidelines.
Janelle Spatz, AAPS, stated that AAPS supports and encourages
adoption of the guidelines.
Ross Dileo, Alameda, urged endorsement of the guidelines.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, urged adoption of the guidelines.
Denise Brady, AAPS, stated that the guidelines have been in the
works for a very long time; urged adoption.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese thanked staff for
developing the guidelines; stated the guidelines are very
comprehensive and provide some good guidance; noted that the window
section of the guidelines prohibits use of aluminum windows stated
Regular Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,3,"certain materials should not be prohibited as technology and
materials progress; the focus should be on the design and
appearance criteria, not the material.
The Supervising Planner stated that a new fiberglass window has
been manufactured which is superior to the wood clad windows in
many ways; the guidelines are intended to be a living document and
can be amended; staff is recommending adoption of the guidelines
for a year.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff and the community for the time,
energy, and effort given to the guidelines stated that the
guideline pictures are useful for understanding what is and is not
permitted.
The Supervising Planner thanked AAPS for all of their input.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff was working on the guidelines when
she was on the Planning Board years ago; stated a voice vote,
rather than ordinance, is a good process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(*05-116) - Recommendation to authorize the Mayor, City Manager
and/or Designee to send letters opposing the proposed suspension of
mandated cost reimbursements. Accepted.
(*05-117) Resolution No. 13822, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Decision to Readopt ZA04-0002 to the Webster Street Design
Guidelines, Known Henceforth as the Webster Street Design Manual. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan commended the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) for taking the lead; urged the Park Street
Business Association (PSBA) to adopt a similar guideline.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-118) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0082 and Variance V04-
0014 to permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be
used as a dwelling unit. The site is located at 1608 Santa Clara
Avenue within the R-4, Neighborhood Residential District.
Applicant/Appellant Michele and Frank Mulligan; and
(05-118A) - Resolution No. 13823, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
denial of Major Design Review DR04-0082 and Variance V04-0014 to
Regular Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,4,"permit the conversion of an existing detached garage to be used as
a dwelling unit. "" Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief oral report.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning Board made a
recommendatior to Council, to which the Supervising Planner
responded that the Planning staff denied the variances.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents ( In favor of Appeal) : Frank Mulligan, Appellant
(submitted handout) i Jeff Kassow, Alameda: Walter DeCalle, Alameda;
Christina Locklear, Alameda.
Opponent (Not in favor of Appeal) : Leo Beaulieu, Alameda.
After Mr. Mulligan's comments, Councilmember deHaan inquired how
Mr. Mulligan obtained the referenced photo album, to which Mr.
Mulligan responded that the trustee provided him with the album.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit provided to
Council is the one on file with the Planning Department, to which
the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
""SFD"" notation on the permit is for the use of the lot.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was anything at the
location before the structure was built.
Mr. Mulligan responded that he did not know; stated there may have
been a garage, but no driveway.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are any records that
indicate that there was a previous garage, to which the Supervising
Planner responded there was a permit for demolition of a garage
dated April 1984; a second permit for a new garage was issued in
June of 1984 and finaled in October 1984.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City issued plumbing
and mechanical permits which would be necessary for a kitchen and a
bathroom, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that a dwelling unit could not have been built
on a zero property line in 1984; inquired whether building a
dwelling unit with a garage permit would have been legal in 1984,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative; the
permit would lack the rear and side set back and separation between
Regular Meeting
4
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,5,"dwelling unit requirements.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board was concerned that the
structure did not meet building codes; inquired what would happen
if Council denied the variances.
The Supervising Planner responded that the property owner would
need to re-institute the garage use that was approved in 1984,
extend the driveway to the garage, remove the French doors, install
a garage door, and remove the kitchen and bathroom.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a garage could have a residential
unit, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the structure does not comply with the
set backs for a dwelling unit; noted that garages are allowed to
sit on two property lines; stated placing a dwelling unit on two
property lines would never have been approved in 1984; that she has
seen countless situations where people apply for a permit, the
inspector finals the permit, and then plumbing and electrical are
installed after the fact; she has a great deal of sympathy for the
property owners, but approval of the appeal would send a message
that the permitting process does not need to be followed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the appraisal form was in
error, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she has not
seen the appraisal form.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there might be safety factors
involved because plumbing, electrical and mechanical permits were
not obtained; that he has sympathy for the property owners ; the
real estate agent and appraiser are at fault.
Mayor Johnson stated that she also has sympathy for the property
owners; Council would be very arbitrary to approve the construction
after the fact.
Councilmembel deHaan inquired whether the structure could stay in
place as a legal garage.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; there may be
some openings that are too close to the property lines and may need
to be closed; some of the plumbing may need to come out.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the external type plumbing would
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,6,"have been permitted in 1984, to which the Supervising Planner
responded that she did not know.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he wished the rules were
otherwise; it is difficult to make things right for the property
owners.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution denying the
appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05 -119 - ) Public Hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ZA05- -
0001 and Rezoning R05-0001 to create a Theater Overlay District and
rezone certain properties to the Theater Overlay District; and
(05-119A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection
30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T-
Theater Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater
Combining District.
The Management Analyst provided a brief report.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce,
submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of Zoning
Text Amendment ZA05-0001 and Rezoning R05-0001.
Proponent (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponent (Not in favor or ordinance) : Gary McAffe, Alameda.
After Mr. Ratto's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
proposed ordinance would have an impact on the Central Cinema, to
which the Management Analyst responded in the negative; stated the
proposed ordinance pertains to multi-screen cinemas.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
6
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,7,"(05-120) Public Hearing to consider a Citywide Zoning Text
Amendment ZA04-0001 to review and revise Alameda Municipal Code
Section 30-6, Sign Regulations, clarifying current regulations and
establishing internal consistency with various Alameda Municipal
Code sections with the primary focus on regulations pertaining to
Window Signs and
(05-120A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) Introduced.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief report.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a medical office not in a
commercial area is allowed to have a temporary sign, to which the
Supervising Planner responded A-frame and I-frame signs are not
permitted anywhere in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed ordinance was
for all retail areas, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents: (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Sherri
Stieg, WABA.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City does not have the resources
to walk down each business district street to enforce the
ordinance; the City is counting on and expecting PSBA and WABA to
help clean up the signage in town.
Councilmember deHaan stated that some of the retailers are going to
have a rude awakening; enforcement of the proposed ordinance needs
to be implemented fairly.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the proposed ordinance is
primarily for signs facing outward and not inside signs, to which
the Supervising Planner responded that signs which are part of the
interior décor would not be considered to be a sign.
Councilmember deHaan stated that tonight is monumental; thanked
staff for all of their work.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.
Regular Meeting
7
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,8,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-121) - Recommendation to approve the Theatre Design Guidelines
and presentation of conceptual parking structure designs.
The Development Services Director provided a brief summary.
Mayor Johnson inquired how wide the sidewalks are on Central
Avenue, to which the Development Services Director responded 14
feet i stated sidewalks on Oak Street are 8 feet.
Mayor Johnson stated that the design guidelines provide a sense of
what the community would like to see when the architects come back
with actual plans.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the timeline.
The Development Services Director responded the design guidelines
could be attached to the Disposition and Development Agreement
(DDA) ; the DDA should be finalized within the next couple of days
for public display and a hearing in April; noted that the public
hearing notice for a DDA is extensive and lengthy.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired the impact of not including the
guidelines in the DDA.
The Development Services Director responded having the guidelines
as part of the DDA gives it more importance.
The City Attorney stated that the DDA does not have to have any
attachments.
Mayor Johnson stated if the guidelines are not adopted tonight,
they would not be attached to the DDA or the DDA would be delayed.
The Development Services Director stated Council could adopt the
guidelines separately.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would prefer to have the guidelines
attached; that she is prepared to go forward with the approval of
the design guidelines.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the scope of the architect's
desires should not be limited; inquired whether there would be two
or three different design concepts.
Regular Meeting
8
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,9,"The Development Services Director responded that the developer
would start with conceptual plans, submit an application to the
Planning Department, and the design review process would begin; she
is not expecting multiple concepts to be submitted.
Mayor Johnson noted that Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce,
submitted a letter stating that the Chamber is in favor of the
Theatre Design Guidelines.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda, stated that it appears there will be a
traffic impact on Oak Street; suggested considering making Oak
Street be increased to 60 feet wide.
Nick Petrulakis, Alameda, urged moving forward with the guidelines.
Scott Brady, Alameda, stated that he was concerned that the
guidelines are overly specific in terms of architectural design
elements.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, stated that the preliminary review is a
good idea; outlined AAPS's suggested changes to the guidelines.
Chuck Millar, Alameda, stated that he was concerned with the
proposed contemporary design.
Mayor Johnson requested the Development Services Director to
respond to the design issue.
The Development Services Director stated the design was done by an
environmental group to study the mass and make a judgment about
whether or not it fits within the contexts and is consistent with
the Secretary of Interior standards; stated there has been a lot of
community concern because of the image the environmental planner
created to do basic evaluation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether a review by the State was
required to determine impacts on surrounding historical areas.
The Development Services Director responded a review would not be
needed if Federal funding were not used.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Historical Advisory Board and other
interested groups should have input.
Elizabeth Krase, AAPS, submitted a handout ; stated that she
welcomes the rehabilitation of the historic theatre with
reservations. ; she is concerned with the projected overhangs.
Regular Meeting
9
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,10,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the projected overhangs would
overwhelm the historic theatre, to which Ms. Krase responded in the
affirmative.
Kevin Frederick, Alameda, stated that no consideration, thought, or
respect has been given to Alameda; noted the proposed design is
bizarre.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there have been any designs from the
architect, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether designs were presented at last
night's Planning Board meeting, to which the Development Services
Director responded the developer had his architect work on some of
the concepts to clarify questions.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the community is reacting to the mass
of the structure; noted overhangs would block the views down the
street.
Debbie George, Alameda, stated the theatre is positive for Alameda;
urged moving forward.
Al
Wright, Alameda, stated that he was extremely happy to have a
theatre in Alameda soon.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated the public has had ample opportunity to
provide input; urged the process not be delayed and adoption of the
guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to take out the
word ""contemporary"" from the guidelines he does not see the need
to give that type of general guidance; without the Cineplex, the
theatre would rot in place; stated nothing is lost by taking out
the word ""contemporary.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; inquired
whether omitting the word ""contemporary"" has any negative impact,
to which the Development Services Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is ample time to massage the
design once the true design is presented; that he can accept the
design guidelines.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is the strongest advocate of
the theatre; inquired whether the retail spaces would be part of
Regular Meeting
10
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,11,"the developer's operation.
The Development Services Director responded that there are two
projects: 1) the potential historic restoration project conducted
by the City, and 2) the multiplex and retail stores, which would be
constructed and owned by the developer; the developer would own and
lease the retail spaces.
Councilmember deHaan stated the mass must remain for the theatre;
inquired whether there would be the ability to design without the
protrusions by removing retail square footage.
The Acting City Manager responded that staff would need to review
the matter and return to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he does not believe that there is
any need for signage other than the renovated marquee  noted that
vertical accent latitude should be left to the architect.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the community and staff have taken
their best shot at the design guidelines; design guidelines are not
going to be perfect, especially in the abstract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation with
removing the word ""contemporary"" from the Theatre Design
Guidelines.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he sees the
design guidelines as a platform that allows more discussions
involving members of the Historical Advisory Board; the guidelines
do not lock the City into bad design; there is a major challenge
ahead in trying to have an economically viable theatre which
minimizes the projection problem at the same time.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has been working on the
theatre project for years and has been very supportive; thanked
staff for all of their work.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that the Transportation Commission
review traffic issues on Oak Street and provide Council with
recommendations as soon as possible.
Regular Meeting
11
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,12,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-122) Mina Talebzadeh, Alameda, requested the City to recognize
Spring Equinox as a day of peace and harmony.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Talebzadeh to provide language for a
proclamation
Gina Mariani was not present but wanted to be on record in support
of Ms. Talebzadeh's request.
(05-123) Michael J. McGhee, Volunteer Veterans Advocate, submitted
a letter; stated that the City currently offers services for
veterans but there is no office or City official assigned to
coordinate the services urged the City to appoint a committee to
investigate veterans' services, to clarify the City's jurisdiction
over veteran programs, and create a City office of Veterans Affairs
for benefits.
(05-124) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he and Audrey Lord
Hausman, co-founder of Pedestrian Friendly Alameda, will be
training at a conference in April; stated that it is wonderful to
see the Alameda Police Department enforcing pedestrian rights and
safety.
(05-125) Al Wright, Alameda, stated that on several occasions the
American flag has been improperly displayed in front of City
buildings flags flown at the Police Department are not consistent
with City Hall; stated that he objects to the American flag being
flown at half mast to honor local citizens; stated that all flags
on City property should be in compliance with when the President of
the United States directs the flag to be flown at half mast ;
requested that Council direct staff to issue appropriate directives
to all departments.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-126) Councilmember Daysog stated that the Chipman Middle School
Drum and Flag Corps requested a City flag for display in parades.
(05-127) Councilmember Daysog stated there is a professor at the
University of California, Berkeley who is moving forward with an
initiative regarding urban casinos; requested staff to analyze the
initiative and provide a recommendation as to whether Council
should support the initiative.
(05-128) - Councilmember deHaan requested that the Transportation
Commission and Public Works Department provide the Council with
Regular Meeting
12
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,13,"information on transportation remediation efforts at Bayport.
Councilmember Daysog noted data indicates that transportation
solutions have to be citywide.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
13
Alameda City Council
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - - 6:35 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-011) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case Community Improvement Commission V. Rite Aid Corporation,
Thrifty, Payless, Inc.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing
from Legal Counsel and instruction was given.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-108) Conference with Real Property Negotiator - Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under Negotiation Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council obtained briefing and
instructions were given to Real Property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 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
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MARCH 15, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(
5-109CC/*05-012CIC) Recommendation to approve a form of
Assignment and Assumption Agreement between University Avenue
Housing and Alameda Point Collaborative. Approved.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:31 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:34 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-129) Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the
performance of the City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:00 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
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-15,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 15, 2005- -7:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 11:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-130) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed recruitment
of the new City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:45 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
March 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-22,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MARCH 22, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-131) Public Employee Performance Evaluation - Title: City
Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:40 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
March 22, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-03-22,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 22, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider
:
(05-132) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to
Recruiter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:50 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
March 22, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-03-22.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY - - APRIL 5, 2005 - - 7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 9:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05 -136 - ) Proclamation declaring April 3-9, 2005 as the Week of the
Young Child.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Peter
Stensrud, Woodstock Child Development Center.
Mr. Stensrud stated that after school programs are essential;
thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-137) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been comments regarding noise
issues. that a suggestion was made to hand out flyers to property
owners in the area.
The Project Manager stated that he will talk with the property
owners and tenants beginning next week; noted the noisiest part of
the project is now; stated that he plans to post a weekly update at
the Times Star building directory.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested advising the public on how to
utilize the web camera for updates.
The Project Manager stated the web camera is accessible from the
City and Library websites.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,2,"Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-138 - ) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Special
Joint City Council and Community Improvement Commission Meeting,
and the Regular City Council Meeting held on March 15, 2005; and
Special City Council Meetings held on March 22, 2005. Approved.
(*05-139) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,165,275.22.
(*05-140) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment
Policy. Accepted.
( *05-141) Recommendation to approve two-month Contract extension
for William C. Norton for City Manager services. Accepted; and
( *05-141A) Resolution No. 13824, ""Requesting that the Public
Employee Retirement System Board Waive the 960-Hour Rule for
William C. Norton. "" Adopted.
(*05-142) Resolution No. 13825, ""Approving Revised Memorandum of
Understanding and Salary Resolution Between the Alameda Police
Officers Association Non-Sworn Unit and the City of Alameda for the
Period Commencing December 28, 2003 and Ending December 24, 2006. ""
Adopted.
(*05-143) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing
Execution of Lease Between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the
County of Alameda (Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1429 Oak
Street. Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-144) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Rezoning, R04-0002, to rezone 1/2 acre from R-5
to C-C; Variance, V04-0018, for a second driveway when one driveway
is permitted by the Alameda Municipal Code; Use Permit, UP04-0013,
for expansion of the vet clinic, and Design Review, DR04-0101, to
allow a 5,300 square foot new commercial building (veterinary
hospital) to replace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial
buildings, with a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces. The property
is located at 1410 Everett Street, 2501 Central Avenue and 2507
Central Avenue, in the C-C Community Commercial and R-5 General
Residential Zoning Districts. Applicant Mary Applegate and Cathy
Wydner. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. ; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,3,"(05-144A) Resolution No. 13826, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Recommendation to Approve Rezoning R04-002, Variance V04-018, Use
Permit UP04-013 - and Major Design Review, DR04-101, for Construction
of a Veterinary Clinic, with an amendment to include that the
Applicant has a dog walking policy and that kenneling is limited to
clients. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation on the
project.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : John Barni, Jr., Appellant
(provided diagram) ; Monica Pena, Alameda; Heather Beales, Alameda;
and Joe Meylor, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Lawrence Henderson, Alameda;
Susan Corlett, Alameda: Helen Mohr Thomas, Alameda; Diane Schaffer,
Oakland; Cathy Wydner, Applicant; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal
Hospital Geni Manchester; Mary Applegate, Applicant; Nancy
Matthews, Alameda (submitted letter) ; and Robb Ratto, Park Street
Business Association (PSBA)
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
Hearing.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Public Works Department
reviewed the current site plan and verified that the plan met
vehicle standards for safety and setbacks.
The Supervising Planner responded that there are hundreds of
instances where buildings are up to the edge of the sidewalk in the
commercial districts; stated that she would assume there were no
restrictions since the Public Works Department reviewed the plan
and did not raise the issue.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Engineering Department
would have commented if the site distance were a problem.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the commercial area was
willing to have dogs walk in the area, to which Mr. Ratto, PSBA,
responded absolutely.
Councilmember deHaan stated dog walking in neighborhoods has always
been a problem; that he feels more comfortable with the concessions
[made by Applicant regarding dog walking] that have been made
tonight ; that he is very satisfied with the architectural design
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,4,"changes ; that he can live with the client only boarding concession;
that he did not hear dogs barking at the site; noted that the site
is a very professional and confined operation; a lot of dogs have
to stay in kennels for a period of time and are picked up later in
the day; that in mind, he feels comfortable with moving forward
with the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Applicant has been very
accommodating.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding
the Planning Board's recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired how the recommended
concessions [regarding kenneling and dog walking would be
reflected in the motion.
The Supervising Planner stated the conditions of approval do not
include the Applicant's agreement that only patients be kenneled on
site, not general kenneling; as to walking in the neighborhood, a
condition could be crafted that encourages use of streets other
than Regent Street and the south side of Central Avenue, which
might be difficult to enforce.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the approval could reflect that the
Applicant has an adopted dog walking policy, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the dog walking policy could be
incorporated.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether including the policy was acceptable
to the Applicant, to which the Applicant responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to incorporate reference
to the Applicant's dog walking policy as well as the kenneling of
client animals only.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-145) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Design Review, DR04-0113, and Planned
Development, PD04-0004, for the construction of a new 6,000 square
foot community center and four detached sixteen-car garages,
exterior modifications to existing apartment buildings, and other
site modifications at the 615 unit Harbor Island Apartments
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,5,"Complex. The site is located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue within the
R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development Zoning
District. Applicant: Chris Auxier for Alameda Multi Family Ventures
LLC. Appellant: Lorraine Lilley; and
(05-145A) - Resolution No. 13827, ""Upholding the Planning Board of
the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR04-0113
and Planned Development PD04-0004 to Construct a 6,000 Square Foot
Community Center and Four Detached Garages, Exterior Modifications
to Existing Buildings, and Other Site Modifications at the 615 Unit
Harbor Island Apartment Complex Located at 433 Buena Vista Avenue,
Located in an R-4 PD, Neighborhood Residential Planned Development
Zoning District. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation on the
project.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether asbestos abatement is part
of the permitting process.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island
Tenant Association; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Lynette Lee, Oakland; Delores Wills Guyton, Harbor
Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc Ecology ( submitted
handout ) ; Reginald James, Alameda; and Michael Yoshi ( submitted
handout) .
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Mark R. Hartney, Alameda Multi
Family Ventures.
Following Ms. Henderson's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired what
type of engineering review must be done to ensure the building is
structurally safe.
The Supervising Planner responded that all of the plans would be
reviewed.
The Project Architect stated that work must conform with the 2001
California Building Code (CBC) ; noted that he is unaware of any
part of the existing building that is not structurally sound;
stated that the Building Department would have notified the
property owners if the building was not structurally sound.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether that is how the process works.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,6,"The Supervising Planner responded that plans reviewed by the
Building Department would be checked against the Alameda Building
Code; stated any new construction has to be done according to the
2001 CBC ; that any rehabilitation to the existing buildings needs
to be done to Code, but not necessarily the 2001 CBC .
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be any work done that
would trigger a requirement for all buildings to be brought up to
code, to which the Supervising Planner responded that she was not
qualified to answer the question; stated the Building Official
would need to respond.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any safety issues would be
addressed by the Building Official before the buildings were
reoccupied and whether a Certificate of Occupancy would need to be
issued.
The Supervising Planner responded that the Building Code requires
that only safe buildings be occupied.
The Project Architect stated that he was not aware that the
Building Department identified any structural problems.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the balconies would be checked.
The Project Architect responded that a Structural Engineer would
make sure that the existing balconies are structurally sound.
Mr. Hartney stated that the Community Center and any additional
work on the old building needs to be built to 2001 CBC ; noted that
the Planning Department would check the safety of every building
before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued.
The Acting City Manager stated that the exterior work is primarily
cosmetic; noted that nothing was being done that would structurally
change the balconies; stated that he would ensure that the Building
Official check the balconies and that the American with
Disabilities Act (ADA) trigger would be reviewed.
The Project Architect stated that the 2001 CBC has a provision that
excludes any upgrades from complying with the ADA for residential
buildings built and occupied before 1991; noted that any new work
done to the Community Center needs to conform with the current
standards.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the building would implement
fire safety measures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,7,"The Acting City Manager responded that the Fire Marshall determined
that there were some Fire Code problems and notified the property
owner; stated a report from the Fire Marshall indicated the
problems were repaired with the exception of the fire alarm system
and elevator.
The Project Architect stated that agreements have been developed
with the Building, Planning and Fire Departments regarding the
level of upgrades that need to be satisfied.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
Hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Department was under a
deadline for the project.
The Supervising Planner responded that there is a statutory
deadline under the Permit Streamlining Act; stated that once a
project has been deemed complete, action needs to be taken within
[60 days].
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the approval for the
Community Center was via the Permit Streamlining process and
whether there are other aspects of the overall project that would
be subject to the Permit Streamlining process.
The Supervising Planner responded that all discretionary permits
are subject to the Permit Streamlining process which includes the
Design Review and the Planned Development amendment for the
Community Center and the new garage buildings.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there are issues other than
what is being addressed tonight that are subject to the Permit
Streamlining process.
The Supervising Planner responded that the structural issues are
not part of the Permit Streamlining processi stated the structural
and plumbing issues are not under the Planning Board's purview.
Mayor Johnson stated the Building Code Appeals Board reviews
building code deviations.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Building Code Appeals Board
addresses instances where a building permit is not issued because
of a technical requirement when the applicant believes that an
alternate method for construction would be appropriate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,8,"Councilmember Daysog stated that it appears that acceptance of the
Community Center design green lights thee project and that
structural issues would be dealt with administratively
Mayor Johnson inquired whether structural findings could be brought
back.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an off
agenda report would be provided.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the tenant status, to which
the Acting City Manager responded there are four tenants remaining
on leases or have approval from the property owners to stay for two
or three months.
Mr. Hartney stated that there is a 60-day timeframe for the Permit
Streamlining Act; that the deadline was in February the Planning
Board requested another study session and an extension, which was
granted; stated that three tenants would be remaining as of
tomorrow at noon; noted that the remaining tenants are under long-
term leases.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the cosmetic work would trigger
a requirement to upgrade the electrical or plumbing, to which the
Supervising Planner responded that she would provide Council
information on the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Community Center was
considered an amenity to the project and whether the City has any
way of regulating the size or square footage of a building that can
be deemed a Community Center.
The Supervising Planner responded that there is no regulation;
stated that the Fifteen Group wanted to provide an opportunity for
some amenities but the building would not be a sufficient size to
hold tenant meetings.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the prior use of two units as
office space was an expansion of use and whether there is an issue
with Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded that
staff would provide Council information on the matter.
Mr. Hartney stated that the plans show that the building was
permitted for 615 units; noted that it is not a change of use if
the owner chooses to take two units off the market to use for its
own purpose, and then put the units back on the market.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would still be 615 units
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,9,"if the two office space units return to rented units, to which Mr.
Hartney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the intent to upgrade the
electrical and plumbing.
The Project Architect responded that drawings for improvements need
to be submitted for a building permit; stated the drawings would be
reviewed to ensure conformance with the conditions of approval and
agreements that were negotiated through the Design Review processi
noted that interior upgrade permits have already been submitted.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the elevators, to which the Project
Architect responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a review on the process of safety
issues prior to occupancy and clarification on lead and asbestos
abatement. inquired how the sewer issues are connected with the
process of upgrading the exteriors of the buildings and whether
sprinklers would be required in the building.
The Acting City Manager responded lead and asbestos abatement and
sewer problems are not addressed as part of the exterior review but
would take place in the ministerial part of the building permits
noted a qualified contractor would need to perform the lead and
asbestos abatement work; stated that the sewer issue would probably
not be triggered but should be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the sewer work would be
required to be done, to which the Acting City Manager stated that
the sewer work should be reviewed.
The Project Architect stated that the sewer work is a condition of
approval i noted that some of the work has already been done and
presented to the Public Works Department.
The Acting City Manager stated that there are parts of the project
which would require sprinklers.
The Project Architect stated that public hallways and common areas
would be protected with a fire sprinkler system and the fire alarm
system would be upgraded; stated that reports from the Applicants
are required as part of the demolition permitting process; noted
testing has been done for lead in the water and the reports have
come back clean.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have a commitment
to look at the transportation mode.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,10,"The Project Architect stated that parking has been a concern since
the beginning; noted that eliminating the carports has maximized
the amount of parking on the site; stated that he cannot guarantee
that there will not be an overflow.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the Judge made a decision and the
redevelopment project must go forward.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Daysog stated that
information has been requested on issues raised.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of resolution denying the
Appeal.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, and
Mayor Johnson -5. Noes Vice Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember
Matarrese - 2.
(05-146) - Ordinance No. 2937, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection 30-3.2
(Combining Districts) i Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 ( T-Theater
Combining District) ; and Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include the Theater
Combining District. Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05 - 147 ) Ordinance No. 2938, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) of Article I (Zoning
Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)
by Adding a New Section 30-6 (Sign Regulations) to Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) "" Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of Ordinance.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-148) Michael McGhee, Alameda, stated that he wants to develop
a resource guide of veterans' services available in Alameda; the
Housing Authority should refer veterans seeking housing to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,11,"Operation Dignity; that he welcomes help from the City Council or
private businesses.
(05-149) Deborah James, Alameda, stated that Redding Property
Management Group is trying to evict tenants without going through
due process.
(05-150) Reginald James, Alameda, stated that there are
reoccurring fires from a malfunctioning dryer at the Esperanza
Community Center; noted problems should be addressed.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-151) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the
Association of Bay Area Governments representative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that Vice Mayor Gilmore serve as the
Association of Bay Area Governments representative and
Councilmember deHaan serve as the alternate.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-152) Mayor Johnson read the names of the members of the newly
formed Task Force: Vice Mayor Gilmore, an Alameda Unified School
District Board Member, Acting City Manager Bill Norton or designee,
Lorraine Lilley, Tom Matthews, Kendra Holloway, Steve Edrington,
Hadi Monsef and Carol Martino.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what was the timeframe for
providing findings, to which the Acting City Manager responded 60
days.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired about the goal of the Task Force,
to which the Acting City Manager responded preventing future mass
evictions and creating more affordable housing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the focus would be centric
to the surrounding Harbor Island Apartments or to a broader area.
The Acting City Manager responded there is more opportunity in the
West End but possibilities should not be limited.
Mayor Johnson noted that information is not coordinated enough ;
staff in different departments reviewed building code violations
and fire code violations in the Harbor Island Apartments staff
should review the issue of coordinating that information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,12,"(05-153)
Councilmember Daysog requested that staff respond to a
resident' inquiry regarding the rules of operating a roving coffee
shop.
Mayor Johnson stated the resident wants to operate a coffee truck
in the City parking lot by the Dog Park; the resident indicated
that East Bay Regional Park representative Doug Siden supports the
idea.
(05-154) ouncilmember deHaan stated that the Cineplex and parking
structure designs are dove tailing together; requested the designs
be presented at the same time and an overall design provided.
ADJOURNMEN'T
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:37 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
12
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 5, 2005- -5:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-133) Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Title: City
Attorney.
(05-134) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations :
Police Association Non-Sworn (PANS) International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) and Management and Confidential Employees
Association (MCEA) .
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council provided direction; and
regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council obtained a
briefing from Labor Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 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
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - APRIL 5, 2005 - - - 5:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05-135CC/05-013CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation: Name of cases : Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the
Council/Commission obtained briefing from Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda Cit Council and
Community Improvement Commission
April 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-05,15,"APRIL 5, 2005 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
COMMISSION MINUTES PLACEHOLDER
The April 5, 2005 CIC Minutes have not been approved by the
Commission.",CityCouncil/2005-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -APRIL 7, 2005- - -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 4:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-155) - Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that no decision was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:10 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
April 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-08,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FRIDAY - - APRIL 8, 2005 - 3:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 4:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-156) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that no decision was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:10 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
April 8, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-08.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - APRIL 19, 2005 - - 7:30 PM
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-160) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Commending
Alameda Police Department Sergeant Jon Westmoreland would be
presented after Special Orders of the Day.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-161) Proclamation declaring April 23, 2005 as Earth Day Alameda
2005.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Paul Groff,
Allegra Printing.
Mr. Groff thanked the Council for the Proclamation.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-162) Resolution No. 13828, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Sergeant Jon Westmoreland for His Contributions to the
City of Alameda. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Sergeant Jon
Westmoreland.
Sergeant Westmoreland thanked the Council and stated that he was
honored to have served the City.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Acting City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement for the
acquisition of real property [paragraph no. 05-166], the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,2,"recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to use $201,000
in Measure B ferry reserves [paragraph no. 05-169], and the
Resolution Approving the Application for Land and Water
Conservation Fund [paragraph no. 05-174] were removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( 05-163) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on April 5, 2005 and the Special City Council Meeting held on
April 7, 2005 and April 8, 2005. Approved.
(*05-164) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,826,558.48
( *05-165) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Community
Playgrounds, Inc. in the amount of $98,930 for Leydecker Park
Playground Renovation Project. Accepted.
(05-166) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager or
designee to enter into an agreement for the acquisition of real
property from the East Bay Municipal Utility District for $110,800
plus closing costs.
Councilmember deHaan requested clarification on the impacts of
drawing $110,800 from the Recreation and Park Commission's existing
budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he understood that the $110,800
was coming from the Open Space Fund.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Open Space Fund was a result of the
property sold at the Harbor Bay Business Park; Council directed
that the sale proceeds be placed in a separate Open Space account.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the money was also being used
for the Estuary Park Project.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative. stated
purchasing the full amount of land [for Estuary Park] shown in the
General Plan could cost up to $5 million; there will be discussions
with the developer and the Bay Conservation and Development
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,3,"Commission (BCDC) regarding requirements for a pathway
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether having an approximate
$300,000 delta will limit the capabilities of carrying on with the
project.
The Acting City Manager responded there would be limitations in
getting a larger share of the land; discussions with the developer
and grant approval would determine how much land the City could
obtain; staff must recommend proceeding because the project is
shown in the General Plan.
Councilmember deHann moved approval of the recommendation to
authorize the Acting City Manager or designee to enter into an
agreement for the acquisition of real property from the East Bay
Municipal Utility District for $110,800 plus closing costs
[paragraph no. 05-166] and Adoption of Resolution Approving the
Application for Land and Water Conservation Fund Estuary Park
Project [paragraph no. 05-174].
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the grant was the
same one the City previously applied for and did not receive and
whether the chances for approval were better.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the current grant
was from the Land and Water Conservation Act; the previous grant
was under the Roberti-z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation
Program; the State prefers to fund developments rather than
acquisitions.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to advise Council on whatever efforts
are needed to succeed.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that it is
important to acquire the last strip of property before the Bay Farm
Bridge because the property completes the Bay Trail and precludes
building another house at one of the choke points of the City; the
development of Estuary Park should move forward with whatever money
is left; when the opportunity comes up with the developer, money
can be found.
The Acting City Manager stated there are ways to work with the
developer to maximize the amount of land the City can obtain; the
matter would be discussed with the developer in the next week or
two.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,4,"Accepted.
(05-169) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
use $201,000 in Measure B ferry reserves for ferry boat repairs.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there seems to be more ferry boat repair
issues with the Harbor Bay Ferry than the Alameda/Oakland Ferry
Service; if so, requested a review of ferry boat operators'
maintenance schedules.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry costs need to
be reviewed; an Off Agenda Report notes that the Peralta was sent
back up to Washington for super structure modifications the
Peralta is a young ship; there were flaws in the materials used;
requested the review address the Peralta.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-170) - Resolution No. 13829, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 21, 2005 Hearing
Thereof - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
( (*05-171) Resolution No. 13830, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of June 21, 2005 Hearing
Thereof - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . ""
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,5,"Adopted.
(*05-172) Resolution No. 13831, ""Approving Tentative Map, TM04-
0004, for a Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park.""
Adopted.
(*05-173) Resolution No. 13832, ""Approving the Association of Bay
Area Governments (ABAG) Report ""Taming Natural Disasters"" as the
City of Alameda's Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Adopted.
(05-174) Resolution No. 13833, ""Approving the Application for Land
and Water Conservation Fund Estuary Park Project. Adopted.
Refer to comments and motion under the recommendation to authorize
the Acting City Manager or designee to enter into an agreement for
the acquisition of real property [paragraph no. 05-166].
(*05-175) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Certain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential) Zoning
District to C-C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, for that
Property Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street.
Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-176) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to adopt FY
2005-06 through FY 2009-10 Consolidated Plan, adopt FY 2005-06
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan, amend FY
2004-05 CDBG Action Plan, and authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute related documents, agreements and
modifications and
(05-176A) Recommendation regarding CDBG public service
recommendations
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Speaker: Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,6,"(05-177) - Ordinance No. 2939, ""Approving and Authorizing Execution
of Lease between the City of Alameda (Lessor) and the County of
Alameda (Lessee) for Real Property Located at 1429 Oak Street. ""
Finally passed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the County Health Center is moving into
the former Children's Library site; there is now a home for the
Recreation and Park Department and the County Health Center
thanked the Acting City Manager for finding a very good solution to
a potentially difficult problem.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the County's opportunity
provides the City with the benefit of improvements and maintaining
a building that is a City asset; the move is a fine solution and
keeps the County services central to the bus line and the center of
town.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, the Acting City Manager stated that the Public
Works Department put in partitions and did a lot of the work in a
short period of time; the County will have a ribbon cutting
ceremony either later this week or next week; the cost of the
materials was paid for by the County; a City building has been
fixed up with a combination of City forces and County funds;
everyone came out a winner.
Mayor Johnson stated that the building was not occupied for at
least eight years and was in fairly blighted conditions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates the Acting City
Manager's win-win solutions.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-178) - Discussion of the Harbor Bay ferry system.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he received many e-mails regarding
the Harbor Bay ferry; noted that the City was able to get a one
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,7,"year reprieve; suggested a Town Hall meeting be held regarding the
ferry system in three to four months; stated that some riders feel
out of the loop regarding ferry issues; noted that a Town Hall
meeting would provide a better sense of timetables for improving
ferry services and costs issues; suggested a more formal way of
communicating with riders be developed by the Transportation
Commission or an adhoc committee that reports to City Council.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog;
suggested that the Town Hall meeting occur soon; stated that the
city cannot afford to lose the ferry service; traveling across the
Bay Farm Island Bridge would affect commuters and is unacceptable:
stated that informing commuters that everything will be done to
keep the ferry in service is an urgent matter and maintains
credibility for transit solutions at Alameda Point.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is in favor of having the Town
Hall meeting sooner, but that it is important to collect
information for presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not see any advertising for the
ferries; noted that fuel cost issues should be investigated; stated
that the City will not lose the ferry service; that there is a
long-term possibility that the Water Transit Authority will operate
the
ferries; the City needs to continue operating successfully
until then; there should be a Council briefing on the state of the
ferries and then a public workshop.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the maintenance issues are
important; noted if the ferry is out of service, commuters find
other means of commuting and it is difficult to get them back once
habits have changed.
Councilmember Daysog suggested that the Council Meeting be the Town
Hall meting.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was a fare box increase of
25% and 40% is needed; the capacity of the ferry service and
parking limitation is a difficult dynamic to solve; that the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service was successful because parking
spaces were increased and ridership improved.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has never seen the parking lot full;
noted that more riders are needed; stated that ridership went down
significantly after the dock closure.
The Acting City Manager stated that staff worked very hard and came
up with a solution that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,8,"staff and Grant Allocation Committee endorsed; more work needs to
be done to refine the information; there are plans to have a Town
Hall meeting next week or the following week; then staff will
provide a status report to Council; a better job can be done on
marketing the ferry.
Mayor Johnson stated that when the ferry problem became apparent,
the Acting City Manager immediately took action and set up meetings
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; thanked the Acting
City Manager for the efforts taken to negotiate one more year.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested that e-mails be sent to concerned
citizens [regarding the Town Hall meeting] in addition to the
normal noticing procedures.
(05-179) Consideration of Mayor's nominations (3) for appointment
to the Golf Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Ray Gaul, Jane Sullwold, and Bill Schmitz
to the Gold Commission.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was extremely impressed with
the applicants' depth; he would hope that the individuals look at
other commissions and boards.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember deHaan.
(05-180) - Consideration of the Mayor's nomination for appointment
to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board.
Continued.
(05-181) Selection of alternate to serve on the Alameda County
Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan has indicated an
interest to serve as the alternate.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that Councilmember deHaan serve on the
Alameda County Lead Abatement Joint Powers Authority Board.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-182) Councilmember Daysog noted that today is the City of
Alameda's 151st birthday.
(05-183 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested a report on the Lincoln
School drop off area situation; there is concern with the next
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,9,"generation of remediation intruding into the existing field area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the School District staff is
presenting a plan to the School Board on April 26.
The Acting City Manager stated that the meeting may be sooner than
April 26 and that he would verify the date.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the plan intrudes into the field
area, to which the Acting City Manager responded that the plan goes
partially into the field area and basketball paved area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the plan would effect putting in a
full size regulation soccer field, to which the Acting City Manager
responded the matter would be addressed at the meeting and City
staff would bring back information.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has informed a couple of School Board
members and the Superintendent that she is concerned about taking
away field space; noted that the basketball courts are not just
used by the school.
(05-184) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the window display
ordinance came back to Council, to which the Acting City Manager
responded that there is 30-day implementation period to allow
people time to adjust before enforcement.
(05-185) Mayor Johnson requested that increasing the size of the
Recreation and Park Commission be placed on the next agenda.
(05-186) Mayor Johnson stated the Finance Director is working on a
more aggressive policy to buy in Alameda; noted that the check
registers indicate how much the City spends outside of Alameda and
are very disturbing stated that sales tax revenue is being given
to other cities a purchasing position might be needed to
coordinate better prices and ensure that purchasing is done in
Alameda as much as possible.
(05-187) - Mayor Johnson stated the Council should consider a
Business Recruiter position in the next budget.
Councilmember deHaan stated that every Economic Development
Commission study indicated a Business Recruiter as a top priority;
noted that buying in Alameda is important.
(05-188 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated important projects are
coming forward; requested staff reports reference applicable plans,
such as the General Plan, Economic Development Strategic Plan, the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,10,"Downtown Vision Plan, the Bicycle Master Plan, etc; staff reports
should have a section that reviews basic conformance to the policy
documents that have been adopted for non-conformance there should
be an explanation of the pros and cons; noted the plans may need to
be updated; projects such as the Theatre, Bridgeside Shopping
Center and the Base need to check conformances to existing plans.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:57 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
10
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 19, 2005- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:56 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
MINUTES
(05-157CC/05-016CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005.
Approved.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(05-158CC/05-017CIC) Recommendation to approve the Annual Operating
and Capital Budget for the Bayport Project.
The Acting City Manager stated the budget scenario is considerably
better based upon the profit participation section that allows
participation in some of the developer's profit.
The Development Services Director gave a brief report on the
project.
ouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether bond issuance is
not required because revenue generated would cover public
improvements and still provide an $800,000 profit.
The Development Services Director responded that one bond was
issued early in the project; the project's bottom line does not
require using any other bonds to finish the project.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether bond capacity is freed up for
other potential uses in the future.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
the existing agreement does not just contemplate the current phase
the obligations of the projects are linked; any project proceeds
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,12,"that flow from Phase I tax increments are obligated to Phase II
unless negotiated differently.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether Phase II has been negotiated,
to which the Development Services Director responded Phase II has a
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) .
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the DDA provisions could be
renegotiated, to which the Development Services Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the bottom
line of the next phase is more favorable.
The Development Services Director responded that a developer
advance is not required; available funds would be required to be
put into the infrastructure in a different pattern.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Research
and Development Park and Business Park look more favorable, to
which the Development Services Director responded that she could
not respond; there are other issues related to the economics.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the profits
rolling into the next project allow for a more favorable situation,
to which the Development Services Director responded possibly.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the price of
homes is the principal factor for the current situation, to which
the Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the break-even point was
$650,000.
The Redevelopment Manager noted the average sale price of the homes
was $725,000.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that news is good overall;
profit participation was initially questionable.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation
Counci lmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC), stated that the APC
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,13,"was originally granted 39 units to meet housing needs for the
homeless: APC entered into an agreement with the City to replace
the original units in east housing near the corner of Atlantic
Avenue and Fifth Street the City told APC that there are no funds
to build the 39 units; the City is contemplating financing a 39- -
unit project through other funds instead; the City specifically
designated project revenues from the Catellus Project as the
primary source for the 39 units, including $2 million from the sale
of land; that designation of funds is not shown in the accounting
presented tonight; without the agreement with APC to relocate
units, the Bayport Project would not have happened; the use of the
Catellus funds could go a long way toward making units more
affordable and serve the homeless.
buncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested an Off Agenda Report
in response to Mr. Biggs' comments.
(05-159CC/05-018CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider authorizing
the City Manager/Executive Director to enter into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
,
approval of the 33433 Report, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project (State Clearinghouse #2004-122-042).
(05-018A/CIC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Approving Certain Mitigation Measures for the
Project and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
(05-159A/CC) Adoption of Resolution Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Continued to May 3, 2005.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:06 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
April 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-19,14,"APRIL 19, 2005 JOINT HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS AND ALAMEDA PUBLIC
FINANCING AUTHORITY MINUTES PLACEHOLDER
The April 19, 2005 Joint HABOC/APFA Meeting Minutes have
not been approved.",CityCouncil/2005-04-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-04-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -APRIL 21, 2005- -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 4:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-189) - ) Public Employment - Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that direction was given to the
recruiter and no decision was made.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:30 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
April 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-04-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 9:29 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-196) Mayor Johnson addressed the Resolutions Appointing
Members of the Golf Commission [paragraph no. 05-207, 05-207A, 05-
207B] after Special Orders of the Day
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-197) Proclamation declaring May as ""Older Americans Month. ""
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Don Oransky,
President, Mastick Advisory Board.
Mr. Oransky thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-198) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Vice Mayor Gilmore commended the Project Manager and staff for
keeping the project running smoothly by putting out many fires
daily.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so adopted or enacted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *05-199 - ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April
19, 2005 ; and the Special City Council Meeting held on April 21,
2005. Approved.
(*05-200) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 2,201,788.60
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,2,"(*05-201) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal
Advertising for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006. Accepted.
(*05-202) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending March 31, 2005. Accepted.
(*05-203) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the period ending March 31, 2005 and approve third quarter
budget adjustments. Accepted.
(*05-204) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4
Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06 for May 17, 2005. Accepted.
(*05-205) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon
Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Cement, Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching Phase 5,
Fiscal Year 2004-05, No. P.W. 08-04-08. Accepted.
( *05-206) Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Alameda
County to continue participation in the Alameda HOME Consortium and
authorize the Acting City Manager to negotiate and execute
necessary documents. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
05-207) - Resolution No. 13836, ""Appointing Ray A. Gaul as a Member
of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
(05-207A) Resolution No. 13837, ""Appointing Bill T. Schmitz as a
Member of the Golf Commission. "" Adopted.
(05-207B) Resolution No. 13838, ""Appointing Jane Sullwold as a
Member of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to the Golf Commission members.
(05-208 ) Ordinance No. 2940, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential) Zoning District to
C-C (Community Commercial) Zoning District, for that Property
Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Finally passed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,3,"Counci lmember Daysog moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote - -5.
(05-209) Recommendation to accept the West Alameda Neighborhood
Improvement Concept Plan.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager gave a Power
Point presentation on the Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated the Plan would make important changes to the
area; requested staff to review ways to accelerate the Plan; stated
that a member of the Housing Task Force Committee recommended that
the Committee review the Plan, provide input, and delay the vote.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the quality of life at the West
End is important because of the high population density; the Boys'
and Girls' Club brings positive steps to the area; funding sources
are important; he is always concerned with transportation issues;
the Transportation Commission needs to be engaged; requested to see
more detail on the sources of estimates for varied activities;
stated that he has no problem with delaying the acceptance of the
Plan; inquired whether the Plan could be delayed.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded there
has been an extensive public comment process the draft plan was
presented at a community meeting in February; Board and Commission
input has been requested; there is no problem in delaying the
acceptance; acceptance of the conceptual Plan is requested;
different components would be brought back to Council at various
times.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the short-term, simple
projects could be accomplished quickly.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded in
the affirmative; stated there is funding available for planting
additional trees on an infill basis, and installation of trash
receptacles at the Webster Street and Poggi Street corridor.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the trash receptacles would be
selected by Public works.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded that
BMS Design would select the trash receptacles; BMS Deign is
familiar with materials and installations throughout the City;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,4,"the Plan was not broader.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded the
census tract has the highest concentration of minorities and low
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,5,"income. the priority was to work with residents to bring more
services into the neighborhood using Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) funds; residents voiced concern about not being able
to walk freely through the neighborhood because of the Harbor
Island Apartment and Chipman Middle School the area to the south
is not a low to moderate income neighborhood.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Plan could be used as a tool to
identify City resources that could be used to improve
neighborhoods; the sidewalks are in horrible condition; the paving
on Santa Clara Avenue is odd.
Mayor Johnson stated the name of the Plan can be changed to be more
specific; there are sidewalk, street, tree, and lighting issues
everywhere in the Cityi there is nothing more odd than the paving
on Gibbons Drive; increased sidewalk maintenance funding and more
aggressive repair schedules need to be reviewed; CDBG funds could
not be used if the Plan was expanded and could result in a thirty-
year Plan instead of a ten-year Plan; that she does not have a
problem with delaying acceptance until the Housing Task Force
Committee report is received; suggested direction be provided to
rename the Plan.
Councilmember deHaan stated expanding the scope cannot be done with
the existing funding; the West End could be reviewed further at a
later date; that he is uncertain what the impact would be in
deferring acceptance until after the Housing Task Force Committee
review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there are projects that are ready to
move forward; stated the Plan could be accepted with direction to
bring the matter back to Council after receiving the Housing Task
Force Committee report.
The Community Programs and Housing Division Manager responded that
tree, trash can, and bus shelter locations could begin to be
determined; staff could synchronize with the Housing Task Force
Committee and report back to Council. the Plan provides a vision of
the future and encourages residents to participate and not allow
development which might become an impediment to the implementation
of the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review ways to accelerate the
Plan.
The Acting City Manager stated that Council could accept the Plan
with the caveat that the Plan be brought back to Council; the Plan
is dynamic; there needs to be equality in the Public Works
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,6,"infrastructure and repairs; Public Works would provide an
infrastructure report at the next City Council Meeting; Council
would receive a model showing the performance of the budget over a
period of ten years in late July or early August reports will
outline what needs to be done to correct problems i funding
recommendations can be discussed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not be on the Council if
not for the support of residents south of Pacific Avenue and
Lincoln Avenue; many people needed to sell their homes with the
Base closure; the neighborhood faces a lot of development Council
would be missing an opportunity if there is no coordination with
activities occurring north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln Avenue.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of accepting the Plan,
modifying the title to reflect the Plan's intent to target the most
needy census tract in the City and requiring that the Plan return
to Council coinciding with the Task Force report to revise concepts
in the Plan if needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is $500,000 in resources
that can go towards activities right away; going forward and
accepting the Plan is prudent; the elements within the first and
third year are very straightforward.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she is very concerned
with the infrastructure everywhere in Alameda; the sidewalks and
streets are not in the same condition as a few years agoi Council
needs to address the issues and set priorities on the
infrastructure deficit.
Councilmember Daysog stated re-designating the name is important;
he is fine with remaining north of Pacific Avenue and Lincoln
Avenue if the Plan is not opened up to Harbor Island Task Force.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-210) Wilbur Richards, Alameda, complimented the Council on the
quality of City services.
(05-211) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the President is
proposing to put oil refineries on closed military bases, which
should not occur in Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,7,"(05-212 - ) Rob Siltanen, Alameda, submitted a letter requesting that
the Alameda Point vision include sensible traffic solutions, middle
class housing, and a small town Alameda feel.
(05-213) - Jon Spangler, Cross Alameda Trail Steering Committee,
stated that Saturday, June 4, is National Trails Day there will be
a trail walk between Main Street and Webster Street.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-214) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she and Councilmember
deHaan attended the Association of Bay Area Government conference
regarding casinos last week; there appears to be a one size fits
all negotiation strategy there is no recognition of the obvious
differences between urban and rural casinos; the Governor' S
negotiator promised that the Governor would take a hard look at
Indian tribes looking to have land restored; the negotiator was not
aware of anything pertaining to the Koi proposal on Swan Way;
stated tribal lobbying efforts have not made it all the way up the
ladder.
(
05-215 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a special
June election for a Measure A parcel tax; the tax would allow the
School District to extend the current parcel tax; requested that
Council give direction to place the matter on the next City Council
meeting agenda; stated there is a gap in School District funding a
County Financial Advisor would be required if the School District
slips into financial disarray; the City does not need a County
person advising how money is spent.
(05-216) ouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that the
reservation shopping battle has just begun; some cities want to
move forward with casinos because of economic woes.
(05-217) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review costs and
funding sources to centralize City administration particularly the
Public Works and Development Services Departments.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would support the idea.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he assumed that the matter
would be addressed with the budget and the ten-year outlook.
(05-218 ) Mayor Johnson requested that the Recreation Commission
matter [expansion of Commission size] be placed on the next City
Council Meeting agenda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,8,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:38 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
8
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MAY 3, 2005- -5:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-190) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney
(05-191) - Worker's Compensation Claim; Claimant : James MacKey
Agency Claimed Against City of Alameda.
(05-192) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( IBEW) and
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) .
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney's
performance; regarding Worker's Compensation Claim, the Council
gave instructions to Legal Counsel: and regarding Conference with
Labor Negotiators, the Council gave instructions to Labor
Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 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
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 3, 2005 - - - 7:05 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-019) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.91 Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing
from staff and Legal Counsel and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 3, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M. .
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-193CC/05-020CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 19, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(05-194CC/05-021CIC) Joint Public Hearing to consider authorizing
the City Manager/Executive Director to enter into a Disposition and
Development Agreement with Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P.
,
approval of the 33433 Report, and adoption of a Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure
Project (State Clearinghouse #2004-122-042) ;
(05-194A/CC) Resolution No. 13834, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Adopted; and
(05-021A/CIC) Resolution No. 05-134, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement Between the
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda Entertainment
Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation Measures for the
Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring Program. "" Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager gave a Power Point
presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,12,"The Development Services Director provided a brief update on the
project.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired about the traffic
remediation requirements.
The Development Services Director responded there was one major
traffic improvement to upgrade a signal at Santa Clara Avenue and
Oak Street; there are struggles with traffic improvements at the
intersection; modifications need to be made to all of the equipment
at the intersection because the equipment is old; the estimate to
do the work is about $100,000; the design plan will provide a nice
public environment to half the block of Oak Street by extending the
public sidewalk from eight feet to fourteen feet and providing
garage and theatre outside lighting to accommodate people, cars and
bicycles entering and exiting the garage.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether determining the
scope is an on-going process, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents: Christopher Buckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society; Susan Decker, Alameda; Lars Hanson, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) i Pauline Kelly; Barbara Marchand, Alameda Civic
Light Opera; Cathy Leong, Alameda Chamber of Commerce; Mike
Corbett, Harsch Investments and Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponents: Gary McAfee, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda;
Joan Steber, Alameda; John McNulty, Alameda John F. Ruake; Zach
Kaplan, Alameda; and Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda (submitted handout) .
Expressed concern with bike safety on Central Avenue between Oak
and Walnut Streets: Robert Van de Walle, Alameda; Andy Cutright,
Alameda; Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Mark Haskett; and Jillian
Saxty, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the Hearing.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the Council should
follow through with the commitment to reconfigure the parking [ on
Central Avenue between Oak and Walnut Streets) to the original
parallel state at the former historic Alameda High School.
The Acting City Manager stated that the need for diagonal parking
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,13,"was created because of the new gymnasium, City Hall moving into the
east wing of the high school, and the Library moving into the
middle wing of the high school; parking was increased from 32
spaces to 58 spaces; Council approved an ordinance modification for
diagonal parking; the Recreation and Park Department is the only
part of City Hall remaining in the east wing and will be moving out
within a month; the Library is projected to move out within 17 or
18 months. much of the parking demand will be eliminated; the
parking garage construction provides an opportunity to move back to
parallel parking; a parking plan would need to be brought back to
Council for approval.
Vice layor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that she has great sympathy
for bicyclists; a large segment of the youth population will either
ride bikes or take the bus to the theatre.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the dollar value of
parking spaces is understood now.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the parking structure would solve a
lot of the parking problems.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the project is good
for all of Alameda, especially the youth.
louncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the theatre project is
important for the whole City; dollars would be kept in town; the
historic theatre will rot if the project does not move forward.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution Approving and
Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development Agreement
Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., and Adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program [paragraph no. 05-
194CC].
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Disposition and Development
Agreement Between the Community Improvement Commission and Alameda
Entertainment Associates, L.P., Approving Certain Mitigation
Measures for the Project, and Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring
Program [paragraph no. 05-021CC].
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,14,"voice vote - 5.
Mayor/Chair Johnson directed staff to bring the Central Avenue bike
lane issue back to Council.
(05-022CIC) Resolution No. 05-135, ""Approving and Authorizing
Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park Street and Otis
Drive Intersection. Adopted; and
(05-195CC) Resolution No. 13835, ""Approving and Authorizing
Execution of a Public Improvements Construction Agreement Between
the City and Harsch Investment Corporation. Adopted.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is critical
to Alameda's economic engine.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the
resolutions.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what
type of funding would be used.
The Development Services Director responded that staff recommends
using Community Improvement Commission funds for the project; the
primary benefit finding is required because the intersection is
just outside the formal boundaries of a redevelopment project area;
the improvements are tied to the form and function of the rest of
the redevelopment project area; Redevelopment Law has a provision
that recognizes that there are projects that may be outside the
boundaries which are a primary benefit to the function of the rest
of the project area.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether other funding
sources were considered.
The Development Services Director responded that there was a
discussion about using some sales tax dollars from the new South
Shore Shopping Center development.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how the two-third, one-
third cost sharing was derived.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula was a
result of negotiations with the developer ; there was a dispute over
the assignment of the impact of the intersection; the developer
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,15,"felt that he should not be responsible for making all the
improvements to the intersection; traffic modeling shows that there
are other background projects not yet developed, but approved,
which would also impact the intersection; the negotiation used the
actual number of trips coming off the project and the impact on the
intersection.
Councilmember/Commission deHaan stated that there might be further
requirements for further entitlements; inquired what the affect
would be on the traffic remediation.
The Development Services Director responded that the entitlements
received for the project anticipate 112,000 square feet of new
retail square footage at the South Shore Shopping Center and would
likely increase; circulation issues related to the gas station
would need to be examined independently additional improvements
can always be made; a need for further improvements is anticipated
by 2020.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he was concerned that
the same [ redevelopment funds are being used for many issues.
inquired whether there is a detailed breakdown of where
redevelopment funding stands.
The Development Services Director responded that there are
sufficient funds; anticipated improvements can be made with
existing tax increments and not bonds.
The Acting City Manager stated that at the next meeting staff would
provide a Community Improvement Commission multi-year budget to
show how much money remains.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is very
important the rationale and logic fits into the true meaning of
redevelopment that he defends the approach of taking redevelopment
funds for the Library project; his motion to adopt the resolutions
stands.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the investment is
necessary if the money means that the City would have stores such
as Borders or Chicos.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City needs to be frugal with
redevelopment money but also needs to use the money wisely; moving
forward with projects that help continue the redevelopment and
revitalization of Alameda business areas is an appropriate use of
funds.
.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-03,16,"Counci lmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is comfortable
with delaying other major retail developments to allow South Shore
Shopping Center to mature; he supports and looks forward to the
renewed Center, but has concerns with funding.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Payment of Certain Public Improvements to the Park
Street and Otis Drive Intersection [paragraph no. 05-022CIC].
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Approving
and Authorizing Execution of a Public Improvements Construction
Agreement Between the City and Harsch Investment Corporation
[paragraph no. 05-195CC].
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-023CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $44,275 to provide additional pre-planning
services for the proposed Alameda Theatre Project.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:28 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY -MAY 4, 2005- - - 4:00 P.M.
(05-219) - A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend a Public Utilities Board meeting.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-04,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MAY 4, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-220) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council gave direction to the
recruiter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:45 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
May 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - MAY 7, 2005 - - - 9:30 A.M.
(05-221) - A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend an Alameda Point Community Workshop.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-10,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - - MAY 10, 2005 - 6:30 P.M.
(05-222) - A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend a Town Hall Meeting on the Harbor Bay Ferry service.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
May 10, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-10.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY - -MAY 12, 2005- -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:30 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-223)
Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services on City
Attorney contract negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the cost and projected hours
would be for the consultation services.
Mayor Johnson responded the cost and projected hours would depend
upon what the Council requests.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the hourly rate, to which
the Assistant City Attorney responded $250.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $250 per hour was the norm,
to which the Assistant City Attorney responded the rate was not
outside the norm and was within the realm of legal services costs
today.
Mayor Johnson stated that she expected the rate to be higher.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought the rate would be in the
$300 to $350 per hour range.
Mayor Johnson stated that the rate is reasonable; that there are no
fixed duties.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Council could provide the
outside attorney with a scope of work and inquire how many hours
would be anticipated.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a charge for
today's meeting with the outside attorney, to which the Mayor
responded in the affirmative.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,2,"Councilmember Daysog inquired what the outside attorney could do
that the Council could not do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council does not provide attorney
services the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest in
advising the Council on her contract.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval the recommendation predicated
on further discussion of the scope of work in closed session.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that a discreet
number of issues are of concern; that he was not clear on the
conflict.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be a conflict if there are legal
issues; requested further explanation from the Assistant City
Attorney.
The Assistant City Attorney stated if Council asks a legal question
regarding interpretation of any provision of the City Attorney' S
contract or requests the contract be approved as to form, there
would be a conflict; the City Attorney would not be able to provide
information [legal advice] another attorney's services would be
necessary.
Mayor Johnson noted that Council has to hire an attorney to sign
[approve the form of ] the City Attorney's contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the City of Oakland requested the
City of San Francisco to comment on whether the Oakland City
Attorney position should be an elected position.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council needs to understand and
clean up the mechanisms of the contract, and ensure the contract
language is legal.
Mayor Johnson stated when the contract has been changed on a
routine basis, outside attorneys have signed [approved the form of ]
the contract without communicating with the Council, which is not a
very good procedure.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council is requesting more
detailed information.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council is trying to determine
the history of the current situation and review salary scales; an
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,3,"outside attorney would need to sign off on [approve as to form] the
contract if Council wanted to give the City Attorney a raise.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire contract should be reviewed; the
Council needs to know whether a new contract or an addendum to the
existing contract would be needed if the Council wanted to give the
City Attorney a raise.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a problem with
proceeding.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to protect the
Council's bargaining prerogative; there could be some matters of
interpretation in the course of bargaining; inquired whether the
outside attorney would be a go-between for the Council.
Mayor Johnson responded the Council would define the outside
attorney's role.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney directly
represents the Council; the proposed Agreement [with Meyers, Nave,
Riback, Silver and Wilson for consultation services] would be
executed by the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had a
copy of the Agreement.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated
only the City Attorney can hire outside attorneys under the City
Charter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the meeting tonight is the result
of a review of the City Attorney's budget; that he wants to process
to maintain the Council's prerogative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council maintains all prerogatives
and would not give up anything.
Councilmember Daysog noted an outside attorney involved could have
a possible conflict; stated that he does not want an outside
attorney to encroach on budget issues.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she did not realize that an
Agreement was already drafted; that she does not want to agree to
something that she has not reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to review the scope of
work in the Agreement inquired who drafted the Agreement.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,4,"The Assistant City Attorney responded Mr. Hartinger drafted the
Agreement.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she thought that the Council was
meeting to agree to hire an outside attorney and that the scope of
work would be determined later; that she does not want her second
to the motion to be considered as an approval of the Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council should not sign an Agreement
without reviewing the scope of work; inquired whether the Council
could make a motion to authorize the City Attorney to sign the
Agreement hiring the outside attorney to work with the Council and
finalize the Agreement when the scope of work is determined.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the motion could be made in
open or closed session, to which the Assistant City Attorney
responded the motion must be made in open session.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the scope of work would still need
to come back to the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the Council's agenda is to
consider hiring an outside attorney to help with labor negotiations
regarding the City Attorney's contract; the outside attorney would
be the labor negotiator in closed session; the City Attorney would
have a direct conflict in advising the Council on interpretations
regarding her contract.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the scope is in paragraph 1 of Mr.
Hartinger's letter [proposed Agreement].
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope of service is
very narrow.
Mayor Johnson stated that the scope can always be changed and looks
fine; the Council could have the outside attorney do as little or
as much as requested.
The Assistant City Attorney stated retainers are not normally paid
to outside counsel.
Mayor Johnson suggested the retainer and the late payment
provisions be removed; stated the Agreement should be left as is to
allow the Council flexibility; outside counsel would not perform
any services the Council does not want.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like Mr. Hartinger to
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,5,"review all documents [City Attorney contract and amendments)
provide a history of the current situation, and advise the Council
regarding moving forward with yearly amendments or bundling all the
previous amendments into one contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that her first intention is to get legal
advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to begin
negotiations with the City Attorney first.
Mayor Johnson stated that negotiations cannot be initiated because
the Council needs legal advice.
Councilmember Daysog stated outside counsel might not be necessary ;
if
issues were not resolved during negotiations, then
interpretation would be needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not comfortable with initiating
negotiations until there is a better understanding of the contract. ;
inquired whether the retainer and late payment provisions could be
removed from the Agreement.
Mr. Hartinger responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiating directly with the City
Attorney should be the Council's prerogative; inquired whether Mr.
Hartinger had any comment on the Council requesting his assistance
on interpreting aspects of the negotiations.
Mr. Hartinger stated the matter should be discussed at the right
time; direction should be given in closed session.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approval of the Agreement, with the
modifications to remove the retainer and late payment provisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is giving up any
prerogative by entering into the Agreement, to which Mr. Hartinger
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what happens when there is a conflict
of interpretations.
Mr. Hartinger responded Council should trust the [outside]
attorneys it hires or seek another opinion and discharge the
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated the ultimate way to settle legal disputes is
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,6,"to go through the courts; that she hopes that the Council would not
get into said situation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the vote might take the Council to
unintended destinations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Daysog but stated
the matter could be discussed in closed session.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has complete control.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the language should be
clarified to: ""advising and/or representing the City Council.
""
Mayor Johnson suggested the language in the scope remain as is,
except for the addition of ""as directed by the Council"" at the
end.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would fall within ""additional
matters"" in the scope of engagement.
Mr. Hartinger responded ""additional matters"" is a catchall phrase
if the Council requested him to do something else.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Agreement would not have to be
reopened to have Mr. Hartinger do something else.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the modified motion [to approve the
Agreement, with modifications to remove the retainer and late
payment provisions], which carried by the following voice vote:
Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan and Gilmore, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent Councilmember Matarrese -
1. ]
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney hires all
attorneys under the City Charter the City Attorney is hiring the
outside attorney to advise the Council regarding interpretation of
her contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council is authorizing the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement as discussed and whether the outside
attorney would work for the Council.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that the outside attorney
would not work for the Council; the City Attorney controls all
legal counsel under the City Charter; the City Attorney is on the
hook for the legal advice given.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,7,"Mayor Johnson stated that she is not sure the Council needs legal
advice on hiring an attorney; that she does not agree that the City
Attorney has control over what the outside attorney would do.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the City Attorney would
hire the outside attorney to interpret the City Attorney' S
contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has directed the City
Attorney to sign the Agreement with changes; inquired whether there
would be a problem.
The Assistant City Attorney stated any additional matters for which
the Council requests [outside counsel's services would have to go
through the City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Assistant City Attorney had any
problem with the modified Agreement that the Council directed the
City Attorney to sign.
Councilmember Daysog stated Mr. Hartinger's letter [Agreement ] is
addressed to the City Attorney; the word ""you"" refers to the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that the second ""you"" in paragraph 1 refers to
the City Council; the Council needs to determine Mr. Hartinger's
intention; the City Attorney would have a conflict of interest if
the outside attorney working for the Council had to go to the City
Attorney for advice.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the scope is very narrow;
the Council would need to stay within the scope.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether ""you"" in the sentence ""provide legal
services for additional matters that you request... refers to the
Council or City Attorney.
Mr. Hartinger stated the Agreement is addressed to the City
Attorney; the City Attorney is the conduit through which retention
would occur.
*
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 5:47 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
(05-224) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider : Conference
with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators Arthur Hartinger of
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-12,8,"Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney contract and gave direction to the Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
8
May 12, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-12.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MAY 17, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-227)
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Declaring
Support for Measure A [paragraph no. 05-228] would be addressed
first; and next, the Resolution Recognizing the Selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City [paragraph no. 05-
229] would be addressed along with the welcome and presentation
honoring Friendship City delegation [paragraph no. 05-229A].
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-228) Resolution No. 13939, ""Declaring Support for Measure A,
Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure. Adopted.
Michael McMahon, School Board President, stated voters approved a
$109 parcel tax in 2001, which gave the schools an additional $1. 8
million; the Board is requesting that the Council adopt a
resolution supporting expansion of the tax for the next seven
years.
Amy Costa, District Director for Senator Don Perata, stated Senator
Perata could not be present due to budget negotiations; conveyed
Senator Perata's support for Measure A; State funding has been
volatile; Measure A would provide funding stability to the school
district.
Richard Heaps, Alameda Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council
President and 2001 Measure A Oversight Committee Member, stated
Measure A has the support of the PTA Council; the Oversight
Committee has seen the results of reduced class sizes and other
programs supported by the 2001 Measure A funding, and would like to
see the funding continue and expand.
Ron Mooney, Alamedans for Better Schools Co-Chair, urged adoption
of the resolution; thanked the Councilmembers for their individual
support; stated school funding is set by the State; the Measure
provides funding that the District uses to support critically
important programs noted an argument was not filed against the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,2,"Measure.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the schools have an impact on the
whole City; the funding will keep programs in place and forestall
any possibility of outside control, which would consist of the
County or State telling Alameda how to run its school district.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated kids are owed a good, quality education;
the City cannot count on the State to provide funding.
Councilmember Daysog stated the resolution is of vital interest to
the City.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the quality of
education is one of the most important things in the City.
Mayor Johnson stated schools would face cuts if the Measure does
not pass Senator Perata is trying to equalize State funding of
education; school facilities in other communities are higher
quality; the Alameda Unified School District has done an excellent
job with the amount of funding it receives; she was impressed with
the teacher and students when she visited a second grade class at
Miller School.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-229) Welcome and presentation honoring Friendship City
delegation from Wuxi, China; and
(05-229A) Resolution No. 13940, ""Recognizing the Selection of the
City of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing
the Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the
Formulation and Implementation of Sister City Relations. Adopted.
Jim Franz and Stuart Chan of the Social Service Human Relations
Board introduced interpreter Tu Zhongliang, Deputy Director, Wuxi
Municipal Foreign Affairs Office, who introduced the Wuxi
delegation: Wang Zhuping, Vice Chairman, Chinese People's Political
Consultative Conference (CPPCC) ; Zhou Yonggeng, Secretary General
CPPCC; Bian He, Deputy Secretary General CPPCC; and Jiang Guoliang,
Director of Study, Culture and History CPPCC.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,3,"Mayor Johnson introduced the Friends of Wuxi Committee : Nancy Li,
Chair; Hans Wong, Vice-Chair; and Otto Huang, Honorary Chair.
Mayor Johnson read the resolution, which the translator also read
in Chinese.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson and Wang Zhuping signed the Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) .
Mr. Zhuping stated he is happy to sign the MOU to establish sister
City relations with Alameda and hopes relationships will develop
further.
Mayor Johnson stated the entire community is proud to be moving
forward with the Sister City relationship, particularly residents
of Chinese heritage and ancestry.
The delegation presented gifts to the City.
Mayor Johnson presented a pewter plate with the City seal.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize
installation of an All-Way Stop Control [paragraph no. 5-235 ] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( * 05-230 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on May 3, 2005 and the Special City Council Meeting held on
May 4, 2005. Approved.
( * 05-231) - Ratified bills in the amount of $3,161,657.93.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,4,"(*05-232) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the Period Ending March 31, 2005 for sales transactions in the
Fourth Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
( *05-233) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for one animal control vehicle. Accepted.
(*05-234) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4,
No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.
(05-235) Recommendation to authorize installation of an All-Way -
Stop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman
Street.
Don Patterson, Alameda, stated that he opposes the four-way stop
sign; the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) did not address the
real problem of why Sherman Street is operating as a major
thoroughfare; the General Plan Traffic Element's goal and intent is
to have a transportation plan with traffic controls and techniques
that direct and keep traffic on major streets; questioned how the
City can make decisions without the advice of a professional
traffic engineer on staff; stated said position has been vacant
since October 2003; urged Council to direct the Acting City Manager
to hire a traffic engineer suggested the application be withdrawn;
noted the individual who filed the application has not participated
in any of the public hearings and must not be very serious about
the request stated the stop sign should only be addressed in the
context of a total transportation plan, not a band-aid approach
that would only exacerbate the problem by moving traffic faster
along Sherman Street.
Stanton Scott, Alameda, stated that he has witnessed many accidents
at the intersection; increased traffic has become more aggressive;
that he supports some form of traffic controls; stop signs would be
good.
Mary Amen, Alameda, stated that she represents a group of Santa
Clara Avenue residents who are opposed to the stop sign; she
gathered signatures in the four blocks directly affected; the
residents would like the City to implement traffic calming devices
before deciding to have 7000 cars a day stop in front of homes,
including 12 buses per hour; accident statistics dropped to one per
year after the City addressed visibility issues; buses and cars
travel at 40 miles per hour (mph) during peak times; cross traffic
could pass safely if cars traveled at the 25 mph speed limit; the
U.S. Department of Transportation and CalTrans guidelines indicate
stop signs should not be used for speed control; the Police
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,5,"Department is called to ticket cars parked in red zones at all
corners of the intersection on a daily basis; submitted photographs
of cars parked in the red zone.
Kathy Gardner, Alameda, stated the intersection does not have cross
walks; drivers on Santa Clara Avenue do not stop for pedestrians
there should be a stoplight, not a stop sign, at the intersection;
drivers on Sherman Street cannot see traffic on Santa Clara Avenue
something needs to be done; there have been multiple accidents an
all-way stop sign is not the best solution; crosswalks and pressure
sensitive stoplights should be installed.
The Public Works Director stated the intersection meets the traffic
volume warrant and accident warrant; the TTT recognized that the
stop sign would impact residents; Council is being requested to
approve the all-way stop because it is the best short-term way to
address the traffic operation issues; the TTT recognized an all-way
stop is not the best long-term solution; Public Works staff is to
provide long-term traffic operation safety at the intersection,
including a review of installing a traffic signal or flashing
yellow signal; Public Works will review how to improve traffic
circulation in the area, how to de-emphasize Sherman Street, and
coordination of traffic corridors.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has asked for an overall,
comprehensive review of the issue over the years, instead of
putting in four-way stops when the City receives requests inquired
what impact a four-way stop would have on Sherman Street would the
stop encourage more traffic on Sherman Street; should the City
discourage additional traffic on Sherman Street stated the City
has been trying to equalize traffic on Santa Clara, Lincoln and
Buena Vista Avenues; inquired whether the proposed stop sign would
put an unfair burden on Lincoln and Buena Vista Avenues; stated
every street in Alameda is a neighborhood; pushing traffic from one
street to another is not fair; a comprehensive review is needed to
address traffic issues; that she wants a better sense of impacts
[before proceeding with a stop sign]; that she agrees with Santa
Clara Avenue residents because she would not want cars and buses
stopping and starting in front of her house.
The Public Works Director stated the Public Works Department is in
the process of completing a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which
would strategically review how the City should assign traffic
street by street.
Mayor Johnson stated both residents speaking in support of some
form of traffic control are willing to consider other methods; one
stated a four-way stop sign is not the best way; if staff is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,6,"working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been
one accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone
review until information from the strategic plan is available.
The Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all
way stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to
liability.
Mayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs
if the City studied every intersection to determine whether
warrants are met.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City
Attorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not
in public; holding the matter over would not be a problem.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a
number of accidents are probably not reported; that he has
witnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles
travel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa
Clara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully,
traffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether
peak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are
probably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street
traffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier
for workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling
down Constitution Way and Eighth Street.
Mayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would
be interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention
to the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more
traffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution
Way; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from
using Constitution Way because of the traffic controls.
Councilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one
lane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at
Santa Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it
more convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street.
Mayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of
the City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the
reason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get
around and off Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,7,"onto Grand Street to travel to South Shore; drivers try to find the
easiest path; for example, changes on Buena Vista Avenue are
causing Pacific Avenue to become a major road; everything has
secondary impacts; that he understands the concerns about a four-
way stop; however, a measure of control is needed [at Santa Clara
Avenue and Sherman Street]
The Public Works Director stated Councilmember Daysog's idea has
not been reviewed; data could be analyzed; staff reviewed the
traffic characteristio on Sherman Street; the average daily volume
along Sherman Street is 5,500 vehicles at Buena Vista Avenue, 3,100
at Pacific Avenue and 2,500 at Santa Clara Avenue the grid system
is designed to filter people and is working; both Sherman Street
and Santa Clara Avenue are minor streets; traffic volumes on Santa
Clara Avenue are higher than Sherman Street; since volumes on Santa
Clara Avenue are acceptable, then volumes on Sherman Street must
also be acceptable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Santa Clara Avenue is wider than
Sherman Street, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative. stated Santa Clara Avenue is designated as a minor
street in the General Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated Sherman Street should not be treated the same
as Santa Clara Avenue as far as traffic loads.
The Public Works Director stated that he agrees there needs to be a
strategic plan; the all-way stop is the best option for now with
the funding available; noted Council approved funding to complete a
Pedestrian Plan tonight, which is an element of the TMP .
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City should do anything possible
to decrease the volume of traffic on Sherman Street; the character
of Sherman Street is different than Santa Clara Avenue; the biggest
problem is the excessive speed on Santa Clara Avenue; suggested the
Police Department put together a program which tickets people
traveling above the speed limit on Santa Clara Avenue to slow down
traffic; stated most of the accidents are probably cause by
excessive speed, rather than lack of a stop sign on Santa Clara
Avenue; the City should review what can be done in the short term
to encourage people to take other north/south streets, such as
Constitution Way and Grand Street; noted the intersection is a
block away from Mastick Senior Center suggested that Council
postpone the decision until there are answers about what can be
done to reduce the load on Sherman Street in the short term.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council should wait; Council should
direct staff to review other ways to remedy the problem at the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,8,"intersection and review whether traffic would be pushed to Lincoln
and Buena Vista Avenues before a four-way stop sign is installed
the traffic lights on Constitution Way should be timed to prevent
bottlenecking and encourage drivers to use it.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers mentioned that the City
does not have a certified traffic engineer requested staff to
comment on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog noted there have been two pedestrian deaths on
Constitution Way, which should be kept in mind; stated there should
be a greater review of the data; requested a comparison with
previous levels to determine whether Gold Coast residents are
commuting down Sherman Street.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the problem is traffic traveling to the
Gold Coast or South Shore filters down Sherman Street, as well as
Bay and Saint Charles Streets, to avoid the bottleneck on Eighth
Street.
Councilmember deHaan noted people are using other routes because
Grand Street is becoming a bottleneck in the morning a remedy is
needed while waiting for the traffic study; police activity is
temporary; pedestrian crosswalk paddles and blinking lights work
well and should be considered; the intersection was a high priority
for a traffic signal fifteen years ago; a solution is needed.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember deHaan's
suggestion to install pedestrian paddles; requested the liability
issue be addressed related to postponement.
The Public Works Director stated paddles could not be installed
until there are crosswalks at the intersection; Public Works would
need at least four weeks to compile data requested by Council.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion included direction for
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by the
Council.
Councilmember Daysog amended the motion to include direction to
staff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that police
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,9,"officers begin enforcement in the area immediately to slow down
traffic while analysis is being completed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the speed board [radar
trailer] retains data, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the equipment has the capacity to
retain information, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated Oakland's equipment has messages, such as :
""please drive slowly this our neighborhood"" or ""children at play;
suggested use of the radar trailer and, if effective, the purchase
of additional radar trailers.
Councilmember deHaan stated other cities have permanent speed
display devices.
The Public Works Director stated staff applied for grants and may
have received funding for a smaller device showing traveling speed
on Lincoln Avenue; suggested staff be authorized to proceed with
putting up pedestrian and speed limit signs, along with the
enforcement and radar trailer.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council would not object to staff taking
said actions; drivers forget everywhere in Alameda is someone's
neighborhood.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( *05-236) Resolution No. 13941, ""Authorizing the use of Measure B
Countywide Discretionary Fund Grant from Alameda County
Transportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and Matching Funds
from the City's Local Measure B Allocation to Complete a Citywide
Pedestrian Plan. Adopted.
(*05-237) Resolution No. 13942, ""Extending Period for Providing Low
and Moderate Income Housing Pursuant to Health and Safety Code
Section 33334.16 for 30 Units Within the Bachelor Officers'
Quarters at Alameda Point. Adopted.
( *05-238) Resolution No. 13943, ""Resolution of Intention to Levy an
Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the
City of Alameda for FY 2005-06 and Set a Public Hearing for June 7,
2005 "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,10,"(*05-239) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park
Commission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2
(Membership; Appointment ; Removal). 2-7.3 (Qualification: Voting of
Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-240 ) Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit
(Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06; - and
(05-241) Resolution No. 13944, ""Establishing Appropriations Limit
for Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-242) Public Hearing to consider collection of Delinquent
Business License Fees via the Property Tax Bills.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Huong Anh Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated the company has
been closed since 1996 and does not have a contractor license.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Silver contacted the Finance
Department, to which Ms. Silver responded in the affirmative;
stated the Finance Department stated paperwork was not adequate and
SOS Urethane Foam Roofing has been listed in the telephone book.
Sherman Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated that he shut down
the roofing company ; that he is keeping his license with the State
contractors board until he dies; he removed the sign in his front
yard tonight; outlined his medical condition; stated he is not
roofing anymore.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council could vote on the rest and
hold over SOS Roofing to allow staff to take a closer look, to
which staff responded in the affirmative.
In response to Mr. Silver's question about review of his materials,
Mayor Johnson stated the Finance Director would review everything.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,11,"Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the motion was to exclude SOS
Urethane Foam Roofing, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded
in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would come back to
Council if additional action was necessary, to which staff
responded in the affirmative
(05-243) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001; and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In Favor of Appeal) : Patrick Lynch, Appellant; Jeanne
Nader, Appellant.
Opponents (Opposed to Appeal) : Ivan Chiu, representing Applicant.
There being no further speakers Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Following the Appellant's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired why
there has been uncertainty about whether there was a Code
violation.
The Supervising Planner responded the Police were called when
removal of the oak tree began; the officer was not aware Coast Live
Oaks are protected; Planning staff was very clear that there was a
violation when contacted about the tree.
Mayor Johnson requested the Appellants to provide staff with a copy
of a letter from former City Manager Jim Flint.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,12,"The Supervising Planner noted the Council is considering the
Historical Advisory Board (HAB) approval that the two replacement
oaks are in the proper place; a requirement of allowing the tree to
be removed was that the HAB would review the landscaping plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing two oaks would
remain in place, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative; noted one is partially on City property.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether staff reviewed damage to the
remaining trees.
The Supervising Planner stated the HAB required that the oak trees
be protected during development and required a registered arborist
advise the Applicant.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the two existing oak trees are being
maintained in their present condition and two more oak trees are
being planted in positions determined by a landscape architect;
inquired whether the complaint is that the two new oak trees are
not in the correct position.
The Supervising Planner responded the complaints are that the HAB
determined that the project was categorically exempt from
California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and the two trees on the
site are not properly protected.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the landscape plan has been
modified since approved by the HAB.
The Supervising Planner responded the site plan has been modified,
not the landscape plan; the building was moved five feet from the
existing tree.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about whether building
a single family home is categorically exempt from CEQA, the
Supervising Planner stated CEQA permits construction of single
family homes to be categorically exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired why building of the house, which is
exempt from CEQA, could not proceed even if a CEQA review were
required for adding new trees.
The Supervising Planner responded Mr. Lynch is referring to
segmentation; CEQA and the courts do not look kindly upon
segmenting a project into pieces, which would be exempt
individually, but which taken together would not be exempt.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,13,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether segmenting is clearly not the
case for the project, to which the Supervising Planner responded
staff does not believe segmenting has occurred.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why CEQA would be required for the
trees.
The Supervising Planner stated the project is a single family home ;
there is a landscape plan which is part of the project; the HAB had
purview over the two new oak trees in the landscape plan as a
condition of a previous approval [to allow removal of an oak tree] ;
the HAB was concerned with ensuring the two new replacement trees,
which are required when an oak tree is allowed to be removed, would
be located in a spot where the trees would thrive.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the basis for
the appeal, Mayor Johnson stated the concern is the construction
process and the impact on and protection of the two existing trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an arborist was hired, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff believes there are adequate
measures in place to protect the two existing trees, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants believe the
measures are adequate.
Ms. Nader responded the problem is she understood there would be no
construction activity after the Appeal was filed; the Applicant
used a front end loader on top of the root system of the trees on
April 25, which the arborist instructed him not to do without
protection; the Applicant exposed and cut into several tree roots;
the certified arborist, which she hired to look at the trees,
determined the damage could be mortally wounding; that she was
informed by City staff that the City does not have money for a
certified arborist to ensure the trees are protected; the damage
occurred after the appeal; the owner has blatantly disregarded the
recommendation from his own arborist; the Applicant drove over the
root system to move fill across the property; Code Compliance
indicated tread marks were not apparent; her arborist indicated any
contamination in the fill would kill the trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the City could do about the issue.
The Supervising Planner responded staff attempts to do everything
possible to ensure that property owners comply with regulations
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,14,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could require the arborist
to submit a periodic report regarding compliance with
recommendations, to which the Supervising Planner responded the
suggestion might be a good solution.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Ms. Nader's comments are
factually correct, to which the Supervising Planner responded that
she did not know.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants provided
information to staff, to which the Supervising Planner responded
staff probably visited the site since Ms. Nader mentioned Code
Enforcement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Code Enforcement staff
provided feedback about the site visit, to which the Chief Building
Official responded that he would review the matter and report back
to Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the site; that he is
concerned about the disruption around the tree; the owner should be
requested to agree to stipulations overseeing the construction
activity.
Bill Wong, Architect for Applicant, stated the arborist recommended
a fence around the tree during construction.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council wants to allow the Applicant to
proceed, but the Applicant needs to protect the trees.
Mr. Wong stated the fence would be put in place once the project is
approved.
Mayor Johnson requested the arborist to explain what needs to be
done to protect the trees during construction; inquired whether he
was retained to provide oversight during construction.
Christopher Bowen, Project Arborist, stated that he discussed the
matter with Planning staff and determined the drip line should be
fenced off.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other measures were being
recommended.
Mr. Bowen responded the fence was to be installed prior to
construction; that he recommends bails of hay be placed around the
three, the trunk be wrapped in carpet, and 2"" X 4"" lumber be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,15,"strapped to branches when construction commences protecting the
root system is the most important action; that he recommends
placing a thin layer of compost, wood chips, and plywood to protect
the root system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Bowen last visited the sight,
to which Mr. Bowen responded about a month ago, on April 7.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Bowen has visited the site
to witness the activity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Bowen has seen the
exposed root system, to which Mr. Bowen responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan noted the fenced off area is only five feet.
Mayor Johnson stated Mr. Bowen should conduct further analysis and
determine whether restoration is needed before other measures are
implemented.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Bowen visited the site a month ago
and created a plan for protection of the tree; apparently the plan
was ignored; that she is not convinced a plan will be followed;
that she understands the neighbors' concern; inquired whether the
City could require the owners to post a bond for the security of
the trees.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted the
resolution states: ""prior to issuance of building permits for the
development on the site, the Applicants shall sign and record with
the County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with
the City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak Trees on the
property. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be in effect
for five years from the date of the recording; Council is
discussing having specific terms and conditions as part of the
recorded Agreement that runs with the land and any violations can
be enforced through Code Enforcement; the terms and conditions
could include posting of a bond to ensure protection.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the City Council has certain powers
under the City Charter with regard to compelling testimony;
inquired when the arborist heard about the disturbance at the site.
Mr. Bowen responded tonight; the last time he spoke to the owner
was to give advice on how to set up a fence around the drip line of
the tree; the he understood the site would be untouched until the
building process began; he was unaware any site work was being
done; his recommendations were to take place before construction
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,16,"began; he was informed that the fence was installed; that he was
not hired to install the fence.
Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be continued since there has
been some disruption on the site; the arborist could inform the
City about ways to protect the tree, which could be used as
conditions in the approval and the matter could return to Council;
the owner needs to understand the conditions are serious and cannot
be disregarded, and there should not be any other activity on the
site.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the arborist's assessment should
include whether the damage jeopardizes the tree; the City needs to
take a close look and have a binding report.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in determining
what occurred at the site: were conditions disregarded, was there
an accident or did nothing happen.
Councilmember deHaan stated the soil brought onto the site does not
look clean; the City should review the source of the soil and
determine if there is a problem.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the owner should be liable for
making the determination; the City should request that the owner
conduct a soil test.
The City Attorney stated a design review appeal could be
forthcoming in four weeks and the two issues could be combined.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should not assume there would be an
appeal of the design review.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the tree issue should be resolved.
Mayor Johnson requested the matter return at the next Council
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the conditions of approval should have
teeth, which could be anything from having a bond posted or
recording documentation; encouraged the City Attorney to be
creative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would
amend the motion to include requiring a review of the soil
condition.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,17,"Counci lmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion accordingly.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-244) Recommendation to develop two separate voluntary seismic
retrofit programs.
Ken Gutleben, Alameda, thanked City staff for making long overdue
recommendations stated the program will lay down the foundation
for developing a safer community; Victorians are extremely
vulnerable to seismic activity; obtaining permits to retrofit
Victorians is difficult due to strict design review laws.
Councilmember deHaan stated Victorian homes often have brick
foundations, are not bolted and do not have any kind of earthquake
bracing.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-245) Recommendation to accept Report on results of Actuarial
Valuations of the Police and Fire Retirement 1079 and 1082 Plans
and the Retiree Health Care Plan.
The Finance Director gave a brief review of the reports.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the new Governmental
Accounting Standards Board (GASB) rules are different and how the
City proceeded in the past.
The Finance Director stated the current rule requires a valuation
of the 1079 and 1082 plans once each three years; a roll forward
letter is completed and there is a footnote in the City's
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in between years;
there is not a lot to report since the City funds on a pay as you
go basis; there will be a new rule pertaining to other post
employment benefits in 2007; the actuarial was completed to look
ahead and determine the value of the Retiree Health Care Plan
benefits in the future; the new GASB rules require a lot of the
data to be reported; the reporting for the Retiree Health Care Plan
will become almost as extensive as the reporting for the 1079 and
1082 plans; additionally, the City will have to decide whether to
fund pay as you go or find a way to fund the entire plan, which
needs further review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,18,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reports attempt to make
the information more transparent and look at future liabilities, to
which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would develop a
plan, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 10-year plan being formulated
would include the liabilities.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated how the
City funds the liability needs to be determined.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the two plans are limited
and new employees are not being added.
The Finance Director responded the 1079 and 1082 plans are closed
the other post employment benefits are for employees who have or
will retire under the current agreements in place.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City is making plans and examining
liabilities other cities, such as San Diego, raided funds that
should have gone toward liabilities and are almost bankrupt ;
inquired whether the reports are related to said case.
The Finance Director responded the rule was in place and had not
been implemented; the San Diego crisis just occurred at the same
time.
Mayor Johnson stated the actuarials, along with the 10-year plan,
are very important i the City needs to consider current obligations
in evaluating economic decisions in the future.
The Acting City Manager stated the point in evaluating the
liability and establishing a plan is to ensure the City does not
end up like San Diego in the future; the City should start
mitigation and establish a plan.
louncilmember deHaan inquired whether the costs appear under the
retirees' names on the monthly expenditures check register [bills
for ratification], to which the Finance Director responded
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one plan is $68,000 and the
other is $37,000 per month, the Finance Director responded that she
could review and confirm the figures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,19,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the actuarial accrued liability
is in excess of $70 million for both the closed plans and the on-
going retiree benefits.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $70 million
is for the retiree benefit plan; the actuarial accrued liability
for the 1079 and 1082 plans is $31,683,000 as of January 1, 2005.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities
are reported to bond underwriters.
The Finance Director responded bond underwriters receive the CAFR
for three prior years; the liabilities are included in the
footnotes.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities
would affect the City's bond rating.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City
is judged on whether or not a plan has been established; pay as you
go is one plan.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry whether a plan would be
brought to Council, the Finance Director stated a report would be
brought back shortly after the first draft of the 10-year plan.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda's liabilities are
typical for a city of its size.
The Finance Director stated the City's consultant who completed the
study could respond.
John Bartel, Bartel Associates, stated the City of Alameda's 1079
and 1082 plans are a little unique; most agencies do not have
frozen plans; the retiree health care plan is a $70 million
unfunded liability with two separate promises : safety and non-
safety; the promise to the non-safety group is at the lower
quartile of what other agencies promise the promise to the safety
group is in line with an upper quartile of what agencies promise.
Councilmember Daysog requested a background report on the matter to
understand the quartiles and median being used.
(05-246) Presentation on the Operating Budget and Capital
Improvements for Fiscal Year 2005-06.
The Acting City Manager provided a brief report on the budget and
provided examples of surrounding cities budget problems.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,20,"Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the clarity of
the staff report.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good approach to balancing
the budget, which Council needs to continue working on; savings are
the result of keeping positions vacant; a more permanent solution
is needed to address on-going decreases and shortfalls in revenues
the proposed budget is a good place to start; despite numerous
budget sessions last year, a balanced budget was not reached
thanked the Acting City Manager for his work; stated that she would
like to see a combination of legal expenses in one place; legal
expenses are under the City Attorney's office, Risk Management, and
Alameda Power and Telecom; the legal budget should be more
apparent; tracking is difficult when the entire legal budget is not
in one place.
The Acting City Manager stated staff would provide the information.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the summary
highlighting the $1.9 million gap and how the gap was filled;
inquired whether the budget includes the $1.8 million decrease in
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) funds.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the
$1.8 million reduced ARRA revenue caused part of the problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Recreation and Park Director
position is being left vacant, which is leading to a policy issue
of how the Council wants to organize department heads; under the
Charter, the Council is responsible for organizing departments; a
background on the issue should be provided when the budget adoption
is considered.
Mayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog is raising the type of
long-term issues she was raising Council will probably look at
reducing the number of department heads.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the recommendation is simply for the
next fiscal year; the position is not being eliminated; Council
needs to make a decision about structure at some point.
The Acting City Manager stated staff is not requesting the position
be eliminated, but is requesting that Council de-fund the position;
staff is requesting the position remain in place, without funding;
Council would have the policy decision about whether or not to fill
the position if funding becomes available.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,21,"Mayor Johnson stated Council could begin working on the larger
issue; the Acting City Manager should not be expected to deal with
the budget problem and the major project of restructuring the
City's government, which is a longer term issue that needs to be
addressed separate from the budget.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposed budget gets the City
through the next year; hopefully the State will live up to the
requirements of Constitutional Amendment 1A and no longer take city
revenues, which would put the City in a better position the
following year.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would not exclude reviewing
reorganization for the next year budget; staff has the knowledge to
determine service impacts; the budget is a major step in the right
direction; all budgets should be reviewed, not just the General
Fund.
The Acting City Manager stated the Council should be aware of other
funds in the City; the budget document addresses other funds, but
other funds were not highlighted in the staff report; the major
deficit is in the General Fund, which funds most departments.
Councilmember deHaan stated deficits would occur in some of the
funded programs and adjustments would be necessary.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for the clarity of the report.
stated the Council is concerned about not filling vacant positions
and about reductions in force; Department Head presentations [at
the next meeting] should address how reductions affect service
delivery to citizens; the Council should adopt the budget with eyes
wide open and the citizens should know what is coming down the
pike; if it will take staff longer to respond to questions after
budget adoption, people should know before it occurs; the community
should be involved; hopefully, there will be more citizen
participation at the next meeting; suggested the matter be placed
earlier on the agenda.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should know the profile of a
full service city; if the police force is down to 104 officers, the
Council should know whether similar size cities have more officers;
the public should have the context of where the City is versus
where the City should be even if there might not be funding to
increase the number of officers; the budget should include said
information; requested a distribution of budget reductions by
department; suggested a comparison of budget reductions versus
operating cost to come up with an index which would indicated
whether anyone is being disproportionately impacted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,22,"The Acting City Manager stated an across the board cut was not
implemented; some departments have been hit more heavily than
others ; the cuts were based upon a judgment he conveyed to
departments based on his understanding of the Council's service
delivery priorities; cuts were made in departments with the ability
to provide the level of service that the Council has indicated
should continue.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has expressed that across the
board cuts are not the correct approach; the proposed budget is a
good attempt to reflect the Council's priorities.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was not opposed to implementing
a one-day furlough instead of eliminating actual positions; the
proposed budget does not trigger the need for one-day furloughs ;
the trigger would have been met if more positions were being cut.
The Acting City Manager noted four positions are being eliminated.
Councilmember Daysog stated if a number of police officers and fire
fighters were being eliminated, considering options would have been
necessary.
Mayor Johnson stated the proposed budget is a solution for next
year, not a long-term solution; the Council will have to decide
whether positions remaining vacant should be eliminated or funded
at some point.
Councilmember deHaan stated staff and service levels for the last
five or ten years should be reviewed to determine where the belt
needs to be tightened or where positions should be added.
Mayor Johnson suggested staffing levels for the last seven years be
reviewed.
The Acting City Manager responded said information would be
provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the public should know the impact of
eliminating four positions; Council needs to understand impacts to
evaluate whether the Council's priorities are being met prior to
voting.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether Council would like a short
impact statement from each department head.
Councilmember Matarrese responded only for the four departments
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,23,"with cuts.
Mayor Johnson concurred.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each
department, especially departments not losing actual employees.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a
profile for Alameda's budget the International City Management
Association (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police
officers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available
for the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated
ratios might indicate additional funding is needed for
a
department; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would
like to know where the City should be.
The Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was
requesting information on ideal staffing levels.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda
County uses said standards to produce its budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards,
to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching
base, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very
valuable because it is reality; the City has certain realities,
such as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that
must be taken into account.
Councilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too;
stated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is
requesting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information
from departments losing a staff person, departments with a large
number of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as
public safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting
so the public would be aware of changes in service.
The Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in
Development Services, which is funded through sources other than
the General Fund.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in
positions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,24,"Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been alluding to the
inability to live off of billets being attrited down; cuts might
not be appropriate; the City needs to be realistic; the easy way,
such as 5% cuts, cannot be used; service needs to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she inquired about purchasing goods and
contracting locally; creation of central purchasing was a suggested
way to do so; requested other ways to ensure as much money as
possible is spent in Alameda and not generating tax revenues for
other cities if the budget does not allow for the creation of
central purchasing.
The Acting City Manager responded staff is addressing the matter
the budget was prepared prior to the request; the matter would
return separate from the budget perhaps a position could be
converted.
Councilmember Daysog stated the proposed budget is fabulous,
particularly the page reflecting salaries and benefits by
department and the statement that: ""if adopted, there would be no
impact on the General Fund reserve.'
John Oldham, Acting President of the Management and Confidential
Employees Association (MCEA) thanked the Acting City Manager,
Finance Director and Human Resources Department for outlining what
is happening with the City budget stated the MCEA membership is
concerned about the proposed cuts and the impact on workload as
jobs of association members are eliminated; employees are the
foundation of what the City does, which is serve the citizens; the
proposed budget requests that employees do more with less, which
will erode the customer experience; that he started his career with
the City in the Recreation and Park Department as a Park Director;
the proposed budget eliminates the position that supervises park
directors, which is a loss of a mentor who understands the
operation; MCEA understands every position has a similar story and
choices will be difficult; MCEA has had just over a week to review
the budget and proposed reduction in force; MCEA would like to
partner with the City to resolve the budget shortfall, while
preserving services, program delivery and the quality of life for
Alamedans requested Council to continue to review unfilled
positions to reduce costs and take a closer look at revenues and
expenditures before eliminating the positions of employees who have
dutifully served the City for years; further stated prior to acting
on the budget on June 7, MCEA is asking to work together to look at
the whole picture before making a reduction in force; MCEA is
asking for time to review the budget together so that everyone
understands the impact of the reduction in force.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,25,"(05-247) Presentation on the City's infrastructure investment
challenges.
Mayor Johnson stated that she considers infrastructure the part of
the City's budget deficit; the maintenance of infrastructure has
declined in the last several years; although money was saved, it
creates a bigger deficit that must be dealt with in the future; the
Council needs to decide whether to continue to allow the
infrastructure to continue declining or to deal with the deficit
and prevent it from growing.
The Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation on the
City's infrastructure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Public Works Director had
information on the percent of streets and sidewalks not in good
condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that he
included said information for streets.
Mayor Johnson stated the information was needed for sidewalks;
sidewalks are in bad condition; sidewalks should be made a priority
in addition to streets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the annual funding shortfall
is $2 million.
The Public Work Director responded in the affirmative; stated
currently $4 million is funded and $6.6 million should be funded;
the $2.7 million shortfall does not take into consideration the $33
million deficit; under-funding each year continues to add to the
deficit.
Mayor Johnson stated the economic result of under-funding would be
more than $2.7 million; not completing maintenance causes greater
damage.
The Public Works Director concurred; stated there is an optimum
point when resurfacing should be completed to be cost effective.
many streets are beyond the cost effective point, which results in
more costly repair, such as a repair which would have cost $1 three
years prior would now cost $4.
Mayor Johnson requested pie charts showing the condition of
infrastructure other than streets, such as sidewalks and sewers.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether only spending $750,000 on street
resurfacing during the next fiscal year would add to the deficit,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,26,"to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated priorities should be determined.
The Public Works Director stated the department has had a reduction
in staff; both the pothole and sidewalk crews had reductions and,
as a result, were combined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether annual contracts included pothole
and sidewalk repair.
The Public Works Director responded an annual contractor is
responsible for sidewalk repairs; Public Works employees are
responsible for inspections, fillets, grinding and minor concrete
replacement.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the contractor's
duties, the Public Works Director stated the contractor completes
the backlog of permanent concrete repair in 300 to 400 locations.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents would understand budget
shortfalls for capital projects, but would not understand the City
failing to have a plan, timeline and priorities.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that he would prefer areas be paved
over, rather than installing manufactured turf.
(05-248) - ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the
meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is probably $8 million
undesignated in General Fund reserve; the City should change course
if the reserve was built up at the expense of sidewalks and
streets; the Council should consider allocating above $300,000;
there needs to be a plan; the Council should receive a report on
how to proceed.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is reaching the point where something
has to be done; people are upset about the condition of sidewalks
and streets.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a structural change should be made ;
spending money upfront will save money later.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,27,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether residents are required to pay
for sidewalk repair, to which the Public Works Director responded
the City only repairs sidewalks damaged by street trees.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about sewers, the Public
Works Director responded the City's sewers are doing fairly well
because there is a dedicated funding source; dedicated funding
sources or fees would allow the City to keep up with on-going
maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Measure B funds were used for
the pothole crew, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the affirmative.
In response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding Measure B
funds being a fixed amount, the Public Works Director stated the
amount varies because it is based on sales tax.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pothole crew defers the
need for maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
resurfacing is still often needed.
Councilmember Daysog stated little changes can change people's
perception; people think negatively of their surroundings if
streets and sidewalks are not maintained; people might have
confidence the City is on the right track if improvements cannot be
fully funded but common areas are improved.
Mayor Johnson stated not dealing with the problem creates a bigger
deficit; the Council needs to review the issue; a long-term plan is
needed to get infrastructure back in shape.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the sewer system is in good shape
because it has a dedicated funding source; a similar option for
streets, sidewalks, and median strips should be presented to the
public; other funding sources will not solve the problem.
The Acting City Manager stated the presentation was the first step
to identify the problem; the next step is to find ways to fund
improvements; having something similar to the sewer fund would be
good.
Mayor Johnson stated the City must be able to assure the public
that a thorough review was completed and there is not any money
available in the budget before raising fees; the deficit is huge.
Councilmember deHaan stated the most important thing is to set up a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,28,"steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time
would not work; a plan should be established.
Councilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should
be considered.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember
Daysog.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should
be spending the money [ on infrastructure] if money is sitting in
the General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there
needs to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same
situation in 10 years.
Councilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the
current level because money was borrowed from infrastructure
maintenance.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-249) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the
budget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify
resources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would
enlist other business associations to partner with the City to
ensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked
Council for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the
Theatre project.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-250) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going
forward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05-
233] ; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff
to consider Chevrolet.
The Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be
a Ford or equivalent.
(05-251) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was
going to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on
the matter.
(05-252) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the
budget discussion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,29,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 12:19 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
29
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,30,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:10 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:20 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-225) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance V. City of
Alameda.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:25 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
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,31,"TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:25 P.I M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers / Commissioners / Board
Members Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-226CC/05-024CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting of May 3, 2005. Approved.
(05-025CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with
Michael Stanton Architecture (MSA) by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $40,000 for design review services for the
proposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project. Accepted.
( 05-026CIC) Recommendation to receive and file revised Alameda West
Strategic Retail Implementation recommendations. Received and
filed.
AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-027CIC)
Recommendation to approve a First Amendment to an
Acquisition Agreement by which the Community Improvement Commission
acquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for thirty units of very low income housing
at the Bachelor Officers' Quarters located within the Alameda Point
Improvement Project.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,32,"Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-028CIC) Resolution No. 05-136, ""Resolution of Necessity to
Acquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes
Authorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for
Order of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et
seq. (APN 071-0203-014 and APN 071-0203-015; 2315-2323 Central
Avenue, Alameda, California - Alameda Theatre/Cineplex and Parking
Structure. Adopted.
Lester Cabral, Tenant, stated that a lot of information has just
been received; that he opposes the resolution until the tenants are
notified about what is going on; that he understands an eviction
notice might be forthcoming.
Chair Johnson requested staff to meet with Mr. Cabral to answer his
questions.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's question about the property
Mr. Cabral is concerned about, Mr. Cabral responded Hair Shapers at
2321 Central Avenue.
Lars Hansson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board
President, stated the PSBA Board supports the staff recommendation
and urges adoption of the resolution; the resolution will
springboard negotiations with the owner to allow reaching a fair
market value within a short period of time.
Duane Watson, PSBA Board Vice President, urged moving forward with
the project.
Robb Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, stated the project is
important for PSBA and all of Alameda; the restoration of the
historic theatre was identified as the number one priority in the
downtown vision process; urged support of the staff recommendation
stated Video Maniacs has been successfully relocated with the
assistance of Development Services.
Daniel A. Muller, Attorney for Cocores Development Company
submitted a letter; stated the letter submitted includes five
categories of objections to the Resolution of Necessity and right
to take the property; the offer of $1.5 million recently submitted
is less than half of the value that a qualified, MAI [Masters of
the Appraisal Institute] appraiser provided 11/2 years agoi said
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,33,"appraiser, Mike Dunn, was jointly retained by the City and Cocores
and came up with a value of $3.7 million; the appraisal the City is
using is over a year old; for a jointly hired appraiser to come up
with $3. 7 million and the City to disregard the offer and use a
year old appraisal that is less than half of the jointly appraised
value is fundamentally flawed; secondly, the City has not followed
the adopted owner participation rules required by law; the rules
specify that the City will give preference to property owners
within the project area, which has not occurred; the City allowed
Cocores to jointly pay for an appraisal and took half of the
$25,000 price for a feasibility study in 1996 that has been
shelved; the City has been willing to take Cocores's money in
partnership, but has not continued to follow through with any owner
participation rules; the third problem is that the City claims the
justification for the public use of the project is remediation of
blight the area is not blighted; the blight findings are unfounded
and not supported by the evidence; additionally, there is evidence
that the outcome of the hearing is predetermined; news articles
indicate the City has commissioned construction reports and studies
and committed itself contractually towards the condemnation and
project; the City is conducting a sham hearing and is committed to
going forward with the project; requested adoption of the
resolution be delayed for a couple of meetings to allow the City to
re-engage Mr. Cocores on the fair market value issue; stated City
staff offered $2.5 million to Mr. Cocores at one point and even
offered $3 million if structured as $2 million upfront and $1
million over a period of years; similar negotiations could continue
if the resolution is delayed; if not, the City will face a right to
take challenge; good faith negotiations seem to have terminated but
could be restarted; additional evidence of predetermination is the
Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been entered
into with a developer; although the DDA is carefully worded that
the Commission is not committing itself to condemnation, the mere
fact that a DDA has been executed with a developer suggests there
is no longer a discussion with the owner; urged delaying action to
resume good faith negotiations and avoid spending resources on
unnecessary litigation; finally, there are fatal, fundamental
problems with the mitigated negative declaration; deferral of some
of the mitigation measures are impermissible under California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) i CalTrans raised problems, such as
traffic impacts and impacts to certain intersections, that were not
addressed; the City must comply with CEQA prior to adoption of the
Resolution of Necessity; failure to comply with CEQA can create
right to take challenges.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the Commission could adopt the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,34,"resolution and give direction to staff to continue negotiations, to
which Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.
The Development Services Director stated staff would continue to
talk to the owner about acquiring the property; staff has attempted
to talk to the owner and has not had success.
Chair Johnson stated it appears the owner is now willing to talk
and the City should enter into discussions if the owner is willing.
The Development Services Director stated the City has been working
on the project for many years; a Request for Proposals (RFP ) for
redevelopment of the project was sent to the owner in December
2000; the owner sent a letter in January 2001 which thanked the
City for sending the RFP and stated: ""the owner's desire is to
wholeheartedly endorse the City's effort to locate a developer to
redevelop the Alameda Theatre; staff has been proceeding on said
basis for sometime; the DDA does not pre-commit the condemnation
action; staff has always intended and hoped to acquire the property
amicably; noted the property owner did not object at the CEQA
hearings or DDA adoption.
Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to comment on the claim of
defects in the appraisal.
Legal Counsel responded the Commission's action is not predicated
on the joint appraisal; staff has full faith and confidence in the
appraisal upon which the action is being based.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the project is important; the City
has an opportunity to save the Alameda Theatre; the City should
continue negotiating with the owner.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Chair Johnson inquired whether Commissioner Matarrese would amend
the motion to include approval of direction to continue
negotiations.
Commissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion to include
direction to continue to negotiate [with Mr. Cocores].
Chair Johnson stated negotiations should continue if the owner is
willing the owner has indicated a willingness to continue to
negotiate; the City hopes to resolve the matter by agreement ;
hopefully, the owner is sincere about being willing to negotiate.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-05-17,35,"Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated moving forward is in
the best interest of the City.
Commissioner deHaan requested staff to clarify whether Hair Shapers
received notification.
The Development Services Director stated that on March 22, all the
tenants were notified that the City made a bona fide offer to the
owner the City's relocation and acquisition agents provided
information to all of the tenants at that time staff would ensure
the tenant has all the facts.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he supports the action to go
forward to allow a common position to be reached.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint meeting at 8:02 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
May 17, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY -JUNE 1, 2005- - -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-253) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction
regarding City Manager recruitment.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:10 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
June 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- - -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-259) Mayor Johnson announced that she would present the
Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas & Electric and
Alameda Power & Telecom [paragraph no. 05-260], the Proclamation
recognizing contributions to the City by our Gay and Lesbian
Citizens [paragraph no.05-261] and the Resolution Commending
Officer Frank Damian [paragraph no. 05-262] prior to the Consent
Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-260) Proclamation expressing appreciation to Pacific Gas &
Electric and Alameda Power & Telecom for the prompt response in
relocating a gas line, thereby greatly aiding the City's efforts in
the construction of the new Main Library.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Susan Yee and
Tom Gaurino from Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and Dean Batchelor
from Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T).
Susan Yee thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated PG&E's
priory has always been to be customer focused and provide the best
level of service possible.
Tom Gaurino thanked the Council for the recognition.
Dean Batchelor stated that AP&T appreciates the proclamation and
looks forward to working with departments to ensure the Library
project's success.
05-261) Proclamation recognizing contributions to the City by our
Gay and Lesbian Citizens and encouraging the community to recognize
these contributions particularly during the month of June, Gay
Pride Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Debra Arbuckle
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,2,"from Out on the Island and the Alameda Lesbian Potluck Society.
Ms. Arbuckle thanked the Council for the proclamation and for the
recognition of the Gay and Lesbian citizens.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-262)
Resolution No. 13846, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Officer Frank Damian for His Contributions to the City
of Alameda. Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Officer Frank
Damian.
Officer Damian thanked the Council for the Resolution and stated
that it has been an honor to serve with such a great department.
The resolution was adopted by consensus - 5.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:58 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:55 p.m.
***
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-263) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring
that the project is on time and on budget; stated that it would be
nice not to have to draw down on the $2 million fund redevelopment
bond money that has been earmarked for the project.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the City
of Alameda Long-Term Park Use Policy [paragraph no. 05-267] and the
recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services [paragraph no. 05-
270) ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,3,"[Items so enacted or adopted are noted by an asterisk preceding the
paragraph number. ]
( *05-264) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on May
12, 2005; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on
May 17, 2005. Approved.
(*05-265) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,017,578.09
(*05-266) Recommendatior to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a temporary Agreement with Alameda County for the exclusive
provision of ambulance services by the City of Alameda Fire
Department to the City of Alameda. Accepted.
(05-267) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Long-Term
Park Use Policy.
Loretta Ferraro, Alameda, requested that there be a provision in
the Alameda Municipal Code (AMC) which would allow the Gold Coast
Coffee Mobile Expresso owner (proposed vendor) to use a parking
space at the Lower Washington Park area and operate his truck in
Alameda.
Michael Ferraro, Alameda, urged acceptance of the staff
recommendation; stated that there is no ordinance permitting mobile
vendors to operate within the City; provided a handout regarding a
Recreation and Parks Department public hearing on June 9, 2005.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council has been in contact
with the proposed vendor and staff has been requested to look into
the operational issues.
Susan Potter, Alameda, stated that other trucks are doing business
in Alameda without licenses which causes revenues leave the City.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the ordinance allows ice cream
trucks to roam through the City; the proposed vendor's request is
for parking; inquired whether the Recreation and Park Commission
would address the matter.
The Acting City Manager stated that there is an ordinance that
addresses mobile vendors; the proposed vendor's request is working
its way through the system.
The Assistant City Manager stated that there is a section in the
AMC that prohibits rolling stores from using City streets, with the
exception of selling fruit, vegetables, packed or labeled ice
cream, peanuts or popcorn; the proposed vendor would like to park
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,4,"in the parking lot near the Dog Park and then move from park to
park; there is a Use Permit provision in the Open Space section of
the Zoning Code that allows commercial concessionaires the
proposed vendor would need to get permission from the Recreation
and Park Commission first in order to get a Use Permit from the
Planning Commission to vend from a City park.
Mayor Johnson suggested having a workshop involving the business
community and Recreation and Park Commission; stated that there is
a significant difference in using a park versus a City street; the
possibility of 10 trucks selling coffee in one place needs to be
considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was a mobile canteen at Alameda
Point; it is important to review the whole picture.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was not clear on the recommended
policy.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not believe the draft
policy is ready for adoption; the policy does not establish or
define standards for non-City use, long-term use, construction or
renovation, or private uses; concessionaire needs to be defined;
stated that he would oppose any private use that is 25% of the
total park acreage available; the park application and review
process is a procedure and not a policy procedures and policies
need to be kept separate; suggested that the policy be sent back to
the Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; noted that
the statement regarding the Recreation and Park Department's
authority to deny non-City uses is unclear; Recreation and Park
Commission decisions need to be able to be appealed to the City
Council stated that it was not the Council's intent to have the
Recreation and Parks Department have the sole determination to deny
non-City uses; the language needs to be changed; the Council did
not request a policy that limited any appeal rights or delegation
of Council authority.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that it appears that the policy was
combined with the process and did not follow through on either one
completely.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a need for a policy.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the
Recreation and Park Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,5,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Council was clear on direction
regarding the Recreation and Park Commissions review the coffee
vendor issue, to which the Acting City Manager responded the
Recreation and Park Commission is currently reviewing the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated it appears that the matter is farther
reaching than just the Recreation and Park Commission and could
spill over into other activities.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is no need to change the
ordinance if the proposed vendor does not want to have a rolling
store; the proposed vendor's sole intent to park his truck would be
a separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would come back to the Council if
necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council's intent was to
have a policy in place before another request for use of parks was
received which might cause some difficulty with the neighbors or
the use of the park; stated that he wants the matter to come back
to the Council regardless of what the Recreation and Parks
Commission determines.
(*05-268) Recommendation to approve First Amendment to Agreement
with Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope
of work and price for the New Main Library Project. Accepted.
( *05-269) - Recommendation to set June 21, 2005 as the hearing date
for Delinquent Integrated Waste Management Charges. Accepted.
(05-270) Recommendations regarding Alameda Ferry Services :
(05-270A) Resolution No. 13847, ""Applying for Five Percent
Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll Revenue Funds
for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for the City of Alameda
Ferry Services, and Authorizing the Acting City Manager to Enter
into All Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds. Adopted;
(05-270B) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Ferry Service Agreement with the Port of
Oakland; and
(05-270C) - Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Blue and Gold Fleet Operating Agreements
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,6,"for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Services (AOFS) and adopt associated
budget.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there was a public hearing
regarding the Harbor Bay ferry which addressed increasing ridership
and marketing services the public should know that the City is
trying to get as much grant money as possible to keep the ferries
operating the ferries need to be in front of the public's eye;
encouraged people to take the ferries.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Water Transit Authority (WTA)
joined forces with the City in moving forward with publicity; noted
the Port of Oakland's $140,000 contribution is now reduced to
$83,000; there is talk about the Port not contributing at all;
noted there would be a major glitch if the contribution amount was
not maintained at the current amount or higher.
The Acting City Manager stated the contribution was going to be a
budget cut for the Port of Oakland; the Port was persuaded to make
a contribution of $83,325 for the next fiscal year; getting the WTA
to take over in the future would solve the problem with the Port of
Oakland funding the ferries.
Councilmember DeHaan stated that it appears that the WTA is going
forward to establish runs in various directions inquired whether
it was the Council's desire to join forces with the WTA at some
point.
The Acting City Manager responded that joining forces with the WTA
would be a Council decision; the WTA's first goal is to establish
new ferry services; the WTA is starting to look at the Harbor Bay
Ferry Service for merchandising and providing some other services
to the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA would have
jurisdiction over funds.
Mayor Johnson responded that the WTA is a transit agency and would
have access to funding that the City does not have.
The Acting City Manager stated that the WTA has access to Regional
Measure 2 Funds which are difficult for the City to access except
through the WTA; the City is currently using Regional Measure 1
Funds through the Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution and
acceptance of the staff recommendations.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,7,"Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council
needs to be careful with the WTA taking over the Harbor Bay ferry
or any of the ferries; the Blue and Gold ferry, and to some extent
the Harbor Bay ferry, are locally controlled; the WTA might decide
to have the ferry leave from somewhere else.
Mayor Johnson stated the level of service and location can be
negotiated.
On the call for the question, Councilmember Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-271) Resolution No. 13848, ""Approving the Paratransit Service
Plan and Applying for Measure B Paratransit Funding. Adopted.
(*05-272) Resolution No. 13849, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Cogent Systems, Inc. Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda
City Charter, of Cogent Automated Palm/Fingerprint Identification
System Upgrade in the Amount of $37,815. "" Adopted.
(*05-273) Resolution No. 13850, ""Adopting an Agreement for
Participation in Alameda County Operational Area Emergency
Management Organization. Adopted.
(*05-274) Resolution No. 13851, ""Designating All Alameda Fire
Stations as Receiving Points for Surrendered Babies Under the
California State Health and Safety Code Section 1255.7 known as
the Safely Surrendered Baby Law. "" Adopted.
( *05-275) Resolution No. 13852, ""Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal Property
in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the General
Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election Held
November 7, 2000. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05 5-276 - ) Ordinance No. 2941, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park Commission
from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2
(Membership; Appointment; Removal), 2-7.3 (Qualification; Voting)
of Section 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) . "" Finally
passed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,8,"(05-277) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.
The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development
proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a
condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001 and
adoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce
Street within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.
Applicant: Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant Patrick Lynch and
Jeanne Nader. Continued to June 21, 2005.
05-278 ) Resolution No 13853, ""Confirming the Business Improvement
Area Report for FY 2005-2006 and Levying an Annual Assessment on
the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for FY
2005-2006. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( 05 -279 - ) Recommendation to accept the Donor Recognition and Names
Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Library Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $30,000 contribution for the
mural was reflective of the cost.
The Library Director responded in the affirmative; stated that four
or five works of art have been selected for the new Main Library ;
there is funding for only one.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed policy has been
patterned after other libraries, to which the Library Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan commended the Library Director's ingenuity
inquired whether plaques would be placed in appropriate spots
reflecting the donation.
The Library Director responded there would be a donor wall;
individuals who donate $5,000 over their lifetime would be
recognized on the donor wall; rooms and pieces of furniture would
also be recognized; areas of the library will be built without
donations; donations can specifically name and honor the donor in a
particular area of the Library.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired who would decide on the wording and size of
the plaques.
The Library Director responded that there would be different sizes
for different donation levels; the donor and the Foundation will
work together to finalize wording and ensure appropriateness.
Mayor Johnson stated the size and approved wording should be
established; inquired whether there would be a provision to not
accept a donation.
The Library Director stated that the final bullet in Exhibit A of
the staff report states that final approval rests with the City
Council; inquired whether the Council would like to review the
policy again.
Mayor Johnson responded that the Council would like to review the
policy when the finer details are in place.
The Library Director stated that the named gift list is not final.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council might want to move
slower and get more public input.
The Library Director stated that there has been a public process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Library is public space and almost
becomes a quazi-privatized space with all the donation recognition
markings it is important to have balance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the criteria regarding the ability
to refuse a contribution, prohibiting corporate logos, and
appropriate recognition should be spelled out.
Mayor Johnson stated criteria for appropriate wording should also
be included.
The Library Director stated some suggested wording could be ""Gift
from"" or ""In honor of. ""
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a wall of recognition was considered
instead of plaques on objects throughout the Library.
The Library Director responded the wall recognition was also
intended.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether it was necessary to have both the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,10,"wall recognition and the plaques, to which the Library Director
responded that having both is usual.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is concerned with
positioning too many plaques through various areas of the Library;
inquired whether the donor plaque recognition would be replicated
on the wall.
The Library Director responded that any donor who gives $5,000 or
more would be recognized on the donor wall; noted the Library
Foundation has begun to schedule meetings with donors.
Mayor Johnson stated she likes the idea of the large item and area
recognition; inquired whether fund raising efforts would be
impacted.
The Library Director responded that having recognition for large
items and areas might be an incentive.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Council should get
clarification on the legal issues of refusing a contribution.
The City Attorney stated that any reasonable rules could be
imposed; the City cannot say no for the wrong reasons. parameters
can be drafted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with the concept and
framework of the policy; inquired when the policy defining the
criteria to refuse a contribution and appropriate recognition would
come back to Council, to which the Library Director responded that
she would hope the policy could come back at a City Council meeting
in July.
Councilmember DeHaan stated how the plaque would read is important.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to have a recognition wall only
as long as there would be no fundraising impact; suggested looking
into what other libraries and public buildings have done.
The Library Director stated it was not unusual to place names on
shelves.
(05-280) Recommendation to accept the Webster District Strategic
Plan Report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that having a grocery store as a key
anchor was not possible; inquired whether parking is being
proposed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,11,"The Business Development Division Manager responded she is talking
to an owner.
Councilmember deHaan stated parking accommodations are all
important for any business and retail area.
Councilmember Daysog encouraged doing an analysis on the demand for
parking spaces.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the report
addresses the need to review parking in the entire area; when new
businesses try to existing buildings to a new use, meeting the
parking requirements is difficult; there is a need to look at
a
parking policy for the area which would met the parking demand.
Councilmember Daysog stated that quantifying is important; there
are pros and cons; some neighbors might not want parking structures
while businesses would.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council gave direction to purchase
an existing parking area that was previously rented.
Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , expressed
her appreciation for the support that WABA has received from the
Council and City staff; stated WABA supports the goals of the
Strategic Plan and urges implementation as soon as possible; WABA
does not want the Plan to close off viewpoints for other
opportunities; the funding for Goal #5 [Small Business Assistant
Program] has been eliminated because of reduced funding; there is
continued funding for the Façade Grant Program and some funding for
a recruiter; noted the analysis of opportunity sites was limited to
vacant land on Webster Street; there are other opportunities WABA
will address the need for long- and short-term parking solutions;
stated she receives daily calls regarding parking issues; parking
will bring in additional business.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-281) The following speakers spoke in opposition to the
proposed theatre multiplex and parking structure: Deborah
Overgfield, Alameda Jay Levine, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda;
Richland Tester, Alameda; Jennifer Van Airsdale, Alameda (submitted
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,12,"Council.
(05-284) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that public transit is
still a problem in Alameda; parking is allowed at bus stops;
temporary bus stops should be fixed to allow accessibility.
(05-285) Michael Ferraro, Alameda, stated that the proposed coffee
vendor [who would like to park near City parks] is seeking a
working permit for the whole City; he is not proposing to do
business within the Park Street or Webster Street areas; stated Mr.
Siden, East Bay Regional Park District, suggested seeing if there
was a way the proposed vendor could have access to the park for his
business.
(05-286) Sherri Stieg, WABA, stated that the Grand Opening of the
Webster Street Farmers Market would be Thursday from 4:00 p.m. to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,13,"8:00 p.m. i Friday night will be the first of the Concerts at the
Cove; the third Thursdays of the month will offer a variety of
festivities; encouraged everyone to attend.
(05-287) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
there is a misconception that the Park Street streetscape is being
done to eliminate parking in order to create a need for the parking
structure; two parking spaces have been lost on Santa Clara Avenue
because of the new bus plaza and one parking space has been lost in
front of Bonniere Bakery on Park Street; stated he spoke in favor
of the original Exclusive Negotiating Agreement for the theatre
four years ago; a Request for Proposal was sent out and no one ever
came forward with any plans.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of addressing the Council
Communications items past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-288) Discussion regarding City of Alameda Management Practice
#37 : Staff-Council Communication Policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that an informational library is being
compiled which would allow Council to have access to information at
one location at City Hall; she feels that Alameda Management
Practice #37 is more restrictive than what the Charter provides
the Practice should be reviewed and either revoked or replaced.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson.
Councilmember Daysog stated that issues that led to past
discussions on the matter should be discussed when brought back to
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that everyone seems to agree to place the
matter on the agenda.
(05-289) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Public Utilities Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Peter W. Holmes and John R. McCahan.
(05-290) Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the
Bridgeside Center; stated there were previous discussions regarding
the Video Station's ability to either occupy a space at the Center
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,14,"and the possibility having a Blockbuster; requested an update on
when construction would start and the leasing mix.
(05-291) Councilmember deHaan requested staff to review how
existing transit operations, such as paratransit and Kid's Coach
services, could provide inter-Alameda transportation intertwining
with Alameda Point.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 12:04 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
14
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- - -5:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-254) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Manager.
( (05-255) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : McGee V. City of Alameda.
(05-256) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators:
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations :
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ( IBEW) and
Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA)
.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of
the Acting City Manager; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel -
Existing Litigation, the Council obtained briefing from Legal
Counsel: and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the
Council obtained briefing from the Human Resources Director.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND ALAMEDA
REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:59 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members
Daysog, deHaan Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
MINUTES
(05-257CC/05-029CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting of May 17, 2005. Approved.
 ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of
minutes with the amendment that the minutes state: ""Recommendation
to receive and file revised Alameda West Strategic Retail
Implementation recommendations.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
ARRA Resolution No. 36 , ""Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the Expenditures
Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. "" Adopted
(05-030CIC) Resolution No. 05-137, ""Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for
the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. "" Adopted; and
(05-258CC) Resolution No. 13845, ""Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget and Appropriating Certain Moneys for the
Expenditures Provided in Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted.
The Acting City Manager/Executive Director stated that this is the
first time that the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
(ARRA) Community Improvement Commission (CIC) and City Council
budgets have been presented at one time noted it is important to
receive the budgets together because there is a considerable amount
of interaction between the three agencies; a long-term financial
plan for ARRA is provided and a ten-year financial plan for the
City would be provided in the near future; additional CIC
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,17,"information would lay the ground work for the next fiscal year
budget the balanced budget has no new or increased taxes; there is
a significant deficit in the infrastructure maintenance; the City
needs to spend considerably more than what is included in the
budgets to maintain the City streets, sidewalks, and trees; a
proposal on how to approach the backlog will be presented to
Council during the next six months; stated that service delivery
impact presentations will be presented to the Council by the
departments with the most significant impacts.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation on the changes in
revenues for the next fiscal year.
The Fire Chief gave a brief presentation on the Fire Department's
budget reduction impacts.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations gave a brief
presentation on the Police Department's budget reduction impacts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Police Department is being asked to
do more with less resources crime statistics and how the Police
Department handles duties matter to the citizens in Alameda; that
she received an e-mail recently stating how well the Police
Department fights crime and that overall crime statistics have gone
down; requested statistics be shared with the public.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations outlined the following
statistics for 2004: Part 1 crimes for more serious crimes
decreased by 16.5%; Part 2 crimes for misdemeanors decreased by
4.6%; arrests were up 3.5%.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 2005 statistics were available, to
which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that
Part 1 and 2 crimes are down, but that he does not have the exact
numbers; arrests are on par with last year.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the hard work of
the Police Department and the pro active approach; Alameda has an
earned reputation to be a place where people who have served time
do not want to come; reaching appropriate staffing levels is a
challenge; his suggestion [to increase the number of police
officers] addressed 18 months ago should be revisited.
Counci lember Matarrese stated that he leaves the ability to keep
crime levels down to experts; Council should be advised when
staffing levels dip below 99 officers; stated the City has 5,000
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,18,"marine slips for property tax paying boats; inquired whether the
Council wants to make a policy decision not to have patrol boat
services; inquired what the cost would be to restore the police
patrol boat to last summer's level.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded the Harbor
Patrol Program has never been full time; the Program takes two or
three officers out of patrol on weekends, which requires overtime
backfilling.
Councilmember Matarrese requested figures on what it would cost to
restore the patrol operation to last summer's level.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Oakland Police Chief was advocating
for boat funding from Homeland Security; inquired whether the City
could join the Coast Guard, City of Oakland, and Sheriff's
department, to provide patrol services on the Estuary
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded that the
Sheriff's Department has been a wonderful resource for harbor
assistance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department has estuary
patrol, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Sheriff's Department performs
enforcement patrols, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of
Operations responded in the affirmative; stated that the Coast
Guard's priorities are different from municipalities and counties;
stated that he will research the Harbor Patrol Program costs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Oakland utilized their
boat, to which the Police Captain of Bureau of Operations responded
that the City of Oakland was not spending much time on the boat due
to the shortage of patrol cars on the streets; the situation might
have changed; he would look into the matter and report back to
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the figures for revitalizing the
estuary patrol should also include the boat repair costs.
The Police Captain of Bureau of Operations stated that the boat is
a very expensive piece of equipment; one of the problems with the
boat program is that officers' skills diminish due to the limited
time spent on the boat; lack of expertise and training also add to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,19,"the expense of the boat operation.
The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the City Attorney' S
office budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson requested further explanation on the impacts of the
City Attorney's office reductions.
The City Attorney stated that the duties of two full-time positions
that are being cut would be absorbed within the existing staff and
would result in some delays in quantity and timeliness of the
workload.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the reduction would cause delays in
reviewing contracts, to which the City Attorney responded that the
current contract review time is two days; contract review will
continue to be treated as a priority.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether two days is an average time for
contract review, to which the City Attorney responded the two-day
turnaround time was the average time for contract review during the
last five months.
Mayor Johnson inquired what service impacts the City departments
could expect; stated that a Charter change might be necessary if
there was a delay in the City Attorney's office approving a
contract.
The City Attorney responded that the existing workload would be
spread among existing staff; phones may need to be placed on voice
mail at lunch time there may be a delay in document production and
routine tasks; stated the City Attorney's office is trying to work
smarter the workload that is handled by the Administration
Management Analyst would need to be spread among the remaining
staff; there would be a need to have Department Heads do more in
terms of contract preparation and review.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a way to advise the
Department Heads which contracts need to be approved by the City
Attorney's office and which do not.
The City Attorney stated that she has tried to triage the contracts
by preparing a training program and getting forms and options on
line to enable the departments to do more of the routine tasks; the
level of the budget cut requires that things be done differently.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,20,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a separate
presentation for Risk Management, to which the Acting City Manager
responded that Risk Management has been included in the City
Attorney's presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would address the litigation
contingency account issue later.
Councilmember Daysog stated that service to the departments is an
important issue; every Councilmember is in agreement with
streamlining efforts; the Council appreciates the service that the
City Attorney's office has rendered to the public on issues such as
the Casino and the Oakland Airport; an 18% cut is a huge hit;
stated that the value of the City Attorney's service to the
citizens could not be overstated.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation
on the impacts of the budget reduction.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the cost would be to implement the Park
Master Plan.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded estimates are
between $75,000 and $125,000, depending upon the number of public
meetings, the review process, and the number of times the matter is
brought back to various entities.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether maintenance would be included in the
Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director
responded the Park Master Plan would be an overall park plan
covering almost every detail of the park system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many grants are successfully
applied for each year, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks
Director responded that the City received approximately $860,000 in
grants from the last two State bonds [Propositions 12 and 40]; the
three grants pending are Estuary Park, Paden School Trail, and
Alameda Point Gym.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there has been a full-time
grant writer in the past, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks
Director responded in the negative; grant writing has been divided
among the administrative staff.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a grant writing position might be
worth reviewing.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,21,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether a grant writing position could be
utilized by all departments.
The Acting City Manager responded there has been consideration to
have an experienced grant writing volunteer; stated grant
application opportunities will not be missed.
Councilmember Daysog stated there are consulting companies that
provide grant search and administration services and only charge a
portion of the grant amount.
Mayor Johnson stated that a professional grant writer might be more
aware of grant opportunities the possibility of contracting out
Citywide grant writing services should be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $75,000 to $125,000 for the
Park Master Plan consulting services is included in the budget, to
which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether anything has been done on the
Park Master Plan, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director
responded the initial research has been performed; a Citywide needs
assessment was performed a few summers ago.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation on the Human
Resources Department's budget reduction impacts.
The Building Official gave a brief presentation on the Planning and
Building Department's budget reduction impacts.
Mayor Johnson stated that there are part-time planners at Alameda
Point and City Hall: inquired whether having all planners at one
location would be more efficient.
The Building Official responded there is one Planner working two
days a week at Alameda Point and the rest of the week at City Hall;
the schedule has worked out well; the Planner will need to spend
more time at City Hall because of the Planning Services Manager
cut.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Department's cost
recovery is still at 90%, to which the Building Official responded
cost recovery is at 100%.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
6
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,22,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that cutting a position that generates
revenue may need to be re-thought the City needs to be business
friendly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City uses contract
assistance when there are surges in the workload and whether the
costs would be covered by the fees, to which the Building Official
responded in the affirmative.
louncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cut of the Planning
Services Manager would slow down the permit and plan review
process, to which the Building Official responded that there would
be a slow down in plan review with a ripple effect on advanced
planning projects.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the cut is not large enough to
justify the slow down; the costs incurred due to the cut would be
far greater than the savings.
Mayor Johnson inquired about the possibility of utilizing outside
consultants.
The Acting City Manager responded that surges and decreases in
activity make it difficult to maintain even staffing levels;
outside consultants are used to staff up for surges and are paid
for by the applicant.
Mayor Johnson stated that staffing should not be leveled to meet
the peak demand.
The Acting City Manager stated that the new Planning and Building
Director could determine the right amount of staffing to handle the
workload.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the
intermediate and smaller projects whose proponents and owners do
not have the ability to absorb the delay; doing work without
permits might be encouraged and cause a deterioration of the
housing stock across the City; the City should be mindful in trying
to save a small amount of money and paying a large price in the
future.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the status was for establishing
a one-stop permit center and whether it was within the budget.
The Building Official responded that staff is working with the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
7
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,23,"Acting City Manager to determine where an appropriate one-stop
permit center could be; funding has been set aside.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an improvement in
the vver-the-counter permit processing.
The Building Official responded in the affirmative; stated front
line staff upgrades have freed up Planners' time.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether goals could be met with
streamlined staffing, to which the Building Official responded in
the affirmative.
The Development Services Director gave a Power Point presentation
on the Development Services Department, CIC and ARRA budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether there would be a Metropolitan
Transportation Commission (MTC) grant available for the Phase 2 of
the Park and Webster Streets Streetscape Projects next year, to
which the Development Services Director responded that MTC believes
the City would be a better candidate once the project has been
completed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City would apply for grant
funding next year, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much the City's match would be.
The Development Services Director responded that the formula
criteria is not known; stated that a number of funding options have
been identified, such as supplemental tax increment payments or
unused redevelopment bond money earmarked for the Library project.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that it is important to ensure that
money is budgeted for Phase 2 next year.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the City needs to be
very careful in Fiscal Year 2005-061 what happens in the coming
year will ripple into the following years; stated there are a lot
of committed projects.
The Development Services Director concurred with Commissioner/Boaró
Member Daysog; stated that the Development Services Department is
anticipating the resignation of a division director mid year; the
position will not be filled; a number of the Development Services
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
8
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,24,"Department funds cannot cross pollinate into other activities; the
overhead and staffing in the CIC budget is a little over 10%; there
are very few bodies managing CIC projects Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funded staff cannot be moved to CIC projects
because it is not eligible for them under the grant dollars; there
is flexibility within ARRA and CIC staff; only four people are
funded through lease revenues; one person will be eliminated; the
Development Services Department will continue to morph throughout
the year; almost all of the cash flows have been completed, which
will provide a good picture of all obligations, pass-throughs,
contractual arrangements, etc.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated there is a greater control
over the operating costs for staff; the City will need to keep a
close eye on projects.
The Development Services Director stated there is not a lot of
cushion built in for all of the capital projects.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the $2 million earmarked for the
Library might not go for the Library because the money might be
needed for the redevelopment projects.
The Development Services Director stated the cycle is very common;
when large construction projects are started there is a slip period
of 18 months to three years before the projects hit the tax rolls.
Commissioner Daysog stated that it is important to be very cautious
with the large budget projects; the Alameda Power & Telecom cable
television project was estimated at $16 million and cost $29
million.
The Development Services Director stated that construction costs
continue to escalate.
Commissioner Daysog thanked the Development Services Director for
the leadership shown.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the budget is fragile at
the best; any Alameda Point glitches would be a major concern;
noted he has deep concerns for the future years; stated that he
would like to see budgeting for the retail recruiter position in
the future.
The Development Services Director stated that a retail recruiter
has been funded for one year.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
9
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,25,"Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that if recruiter benefits are realized,
funding can be added for the future years re-emphasized that 2005,
2006, and 2007 will be extremely lean years ; stated that she
appreciates the complex and difficult work done by the Development
Services Department; efforts will help to bring Alameda back to the
viable community and good business center of 20 to 50 years ago.
Commissioner/Boar Member Gilmore thanked the Acting City
Manager/Acting Executive Director and Department Heads for an
extremely useful budget presentation; requested additional
information on the COPS Unit and additional staffing of the DARE
Program.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report providing up to
date information on the issue of telephone tax for public safety.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the proposal to fund
infrastructure included an increase in the property transfer tax
and the legality of using the funds for streets and sidewalks.
The Acting City Manager responded that he would include the
property transfer tax increase in the proposal; the City Attorney
will look into the legality of the matter Proposition 218
addresses what can and cannot be done.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that she would like to continue to look
at attorney and risk management costs; she would like to spend as
little as possible on attorneys so that the money could be spent
elsewhere; stated that it is important to be efficient with money
and not cut in ways that eventually lead to spending more; stated
that the Council needs to exercise some oversight over the
litigation contingency budgets; the total amount budgeted for Risk
Management is approximately $470,000 and approximately $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; suggested that the money be allocated as
proposed in the budget but that the City Attorney bring requests
to hire outside counsel to the City Council; the City Attorney
could be authorized to spend around $2500 for emergencies until the
approval to hire outside counsel can be brought to Council. stated
she is open to suggestions from the City Attorney noted that the
Charter gives the Council oversight of hiring outside counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Planning and Building
reduction is a lay off or an unfilled position, to which the Acting
City Manager responded the position would not be filled; stated he
would like to fill the Planning and Building Director position
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
10
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,26,"first and then get staffing recommendations.
Councilmember Matarrese reiterated that the dollar amount of the
reduction is small. that he likes the idea of contracting services;
having a reduction in the processing of permits and review of plans
costs the City and customer money in the long run; other budget
issues are hard realities; stated City services cost a lot of
money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was $150 million in
permits this year, to which the Building Official responded permits
have totaled $138 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was not a budget for FY
2004-05 for nine months the ten-year plan will give better
insight he is concerned with the future years; praised the efforts
of all involved with the budget preparation; stated the information
provided is good, hard data; it is important to have some balances
in equity within pay structures and labor management agreements.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was glad that the public was
present at tonight's meeting; she hoped that more people attend
when the ten-year budget is presented; the City's past commitments
will pay a big role in the future.
Councilmember Daysog stated that having a ten-year budget is great
but it is important to have a strong hold on the budget situation
for the next 6 to 18 months suggested devising a system to track
spending and see how the budget is evolving every two weeks.
The Acting City Manager stated that he always reviews the budget
with the Finance Director. stated that said information can be
passed on to Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report on grant models
and payment options; stated he looked forward to the City
Attorney's review on how to handle the budget issues regarding",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,27,"would like to have a six month review; she does not want to bog
down the process; the right amount of money needed for urgent
matters should be set; the Charter also allows the Council to
delegate the authority to other boards and commissions; the Council
should consider delegating the hiring of outside counsel for
Alameda Power & Telecom to the Public Utilities Board.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he does not feel there is over
spending in the City Attorney's office.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is not suggesting changing the budget
amount she is trying to follow the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the budget began with focus on the
General Fund; special revenue funds, capital projects, debt
service, and enterprise funds also need to be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that all the funds are intermingled to
a
certain extent and have impacts on each other.
Board Member deHaan moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Resolution.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the Community Improvement
Commission Resolution.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the City Council Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-031CIC) - Recommendation to approve the Determination that
planning and administrative expenses incurred during FY 2004-05 are
necessary for the production, improvement or preservation of low-
and moderate-income housing.
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
12
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-07,28,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
13
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
June 7, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JUNE 14, 2005- -5:30 P. M.
Acting Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note:
Mayor Johnson was present via
teleconference from The Hilton, 720 S. Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, IL, 60605. ]
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
( 05-292 - ) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council discussed
public employment of the City Manager.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:10 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
June 14, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(
05-298) - Proclamation recognizing Alameda Reads 20th Anniversary
of formal literacy service to adults.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Jordona
Elderts, Alameda Adult Literacy Program Director.
Ms. Elderts thanked the Council for the proclamation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*05-299) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on
June 1, 2005; and Special and Regular City Council Meetings held
on June 7, 2005. Approved.
(*05-300) Ratified bills in the amount of 2,944,635.27.
(*05-301) Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising
for Fiscal Year 2005-06. Accepted.
(*05-302) - Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with
Golden Bay Construction Inc. for the Webster Renaissance
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,2,"Project, No. P.W. 07-02-07 in the amount of $50,000 using
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funds for the purchase
and installation of bus shelters. Accepted.
(*05-303) Resolution No. 13854, ""Recommending the Inclusion of
Projects in the Alameda Countywide Bicycle Plan. ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( (05-304) - Resolution No. 13855, ""Appointing Peter W. Holmes as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board. "" Adopted.
(05-304A) Resolution No. 13856, ""Appointing John R. McCahan as a
Member of the Public Utilities Board. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath and presented certificates
of appointment to the Public Utilities Board members.
( (05-305) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory
Committee to Public Art Commission, Transfer Reporting from
Recreation and Park Commission to City Council, and Transfer
Staffing from the Recreation and Park Department to the Planning
and Building Department by Amending Subsections 30-65.3
(Contribution Requirements), 30-65.4 (Public Art) 30-65.5
(Alameda Public Art Fund) , 30-65.7 (Public Art Advisory
Committee), , 30-65.8 (Application and Approval Procedures for
Placing Public Art on Private Property) , 30-65.10 (Guidelines
for Approval) and 30-65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of
Section 30-65 (Public Art in New Commercial, Industrial,
Residential and Municipal Construction) Introduced.
Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated that changing the name of the
Public Art Advisory Committee to the Public Art Commission would
involve increased responsibility. suggested that the duties be
reviewed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,3,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-306) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two
Coast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce
Street. The submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new
development proposals, was required by the Historical Advisory
Board as a condition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree
in 2001. The site is located at 301 Spruce Street within the R-4
Neighborhood Residential Zoning District. Applicant : Bill Wong
for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and Jeanne Nader; and
(05-306A) Resolution No. 13857, ""Upholding the Historical
Advisory Board's Approval of a Landscaping Plan for Planting Two
Coast Live Oak Trees on the Vacant Property at 301 Spruce
Street. Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponent (In Favor of Appeal) : Patrick Lynch, Appellant.
Opponents (Opposed to Appeal) : Joanne Lam, Applicant; Ivan Chiu,
Bill Wong Engineering & Design Christopher Bowen, Project
Arborist.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what percentage of the
composite sample came from the piles of fill versus the areas
under the drip line of the tree, to which Mr. Bowen responded
about half of the soil was from the piles.
Councilmember Daysog noted that the Appellant stated that the
laboratory scientist was not accredited; inquired to what extent
the matter would be an issue.
Mr. Bowen stated that the laboratory would supply the Title 22
limits which include heavy metals; the laboratory is reputable
and is recommended in the arborist field.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how to address the concern that
the laboratory is not accredited to perform Title 22 soil
testing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,4,"The Acting Planning Director stated that he had no knowledge of
the issue; the Planning and Building Department was asked to
test the soil to see if the soil was safe for the trees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Title 22 related to safety for
trees.
Mr. Bowen responded that he was advised that Title 22 addressed
toxicity of materials in the soil; he was asked to find out if
the trees would be harmed by anything in the soil; the soil from
the fill was tested as well as the soil around the trees.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be removed from
the site during construction, to which the Acting Planning
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pile of dumped soil
would be removed, to which the Acting Planning Director
responded that most of the pile would be redistributed, if not
removed from the site.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the soil should be analyzed for
the health of the trees and to see if there was dumping of
hazardous soil; there is a concern with mixing the soil.
The Planner III stated that Title 22 specifically addresses
environmental hazards and hazardous waste materials for the
general environment.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a licensed arborist is
looking at the health and protection of the trees; the Historic
Advisory Board has a solution to mitigate the removal of trees;
a composite soil sample has been collected that is appropriate
for the future health of the trees; the laboratory' S
certification to determine whether the soil dumped was toxic is
questionable; the owner should be responsible for taking the
soil away if the levels exceed the same standards that are
applied at Alameda Point for building residential units.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted that the Planner III stated that Title
22 covers hazardous waste in situations beyond agriculture; the
report states that the mineral content of the soil does not
exceed Title 22 limits.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is a question about whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,5,"the correct method was used.
Mayor Johnson stated the project could move forward with a
condition of staff confirmation.
Councilmember deHaan stated it is important to ensure that the
dumped soil is analyzed and moved to the proper location and
that the project should continue.
Councilmember Daysog provided a brief background on the history
of the trees at the site.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with
conditions to require appropriate analysis of the soil deposited
to ensure it meets residential safety, to require the owner to
remove the soil if levels exceed levels necessary for
residential use, and that staff oversee the project.
Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda report on the
matter.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-307) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
13858, ""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2."" Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-308) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
13859, ""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and
Assessment and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Maintenance
Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-309) - Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,6,"13860, ""Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills.
Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Opponents : Nancy Schlegel, Alameda; Leo Beaulieu, Alameda;
Pamela Jones, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Following Nancy Schlegel's comments, Mayor Johnson suggested
that Ms. Schlegel discuss her garbage problem with the Acting
City Manager.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was concerned that Ms.
Schlegel's garbage problem had been on going for two years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that space allotted for recycling
bins is the Home Owner Association's responsibility the City
can address the lack of response and communication between the
contractor and the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ms. Schlegel received any
notification.
Ms. Schlegel responded that she has returned unopened statements
and left messages but has not been called back.
The Public Works Director stated notification is via the bill; a
late notice is sent 45 days after a bill has not been paid;
there have been eight notifications over two years based upon
information provided by Alameda County Industries (ACI)
Following speaker Leo Beaulieu, the Public Works Director stated
the integrated waste management rate pays for all services
residents can use one or all of the services; there are no
longer exemptions for green waste; the contract with ACI allows
for vacation exemptions it is necessary to call ahead of time
to stop and start service.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Mr. Beaulieu discuss the matter
with the Public Works Director.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,7,"The Public Works Director stated that the Council could make a
motion to adopt the resolution and give staff two weeks to
resolve the issues; if the issues are not resolved, a lien would
be placed on the properties.
The Acting City Manager requested that the two written
communications presented to Council tonight be included with the
speakers' requests for staff review.
Councilmember deHaan stated better communication regarding the
new contract requirements is needed; inquired whether collection
through property taxes has been done before.
The Public Works Director responded that collection of payment
through property taxes has not been done in the seven years he
has been with the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether it is the City's
responsibility to determine how outstanding bills are resolved.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
that delinquent accounts would be included in the next rate
review in a year and a half; any garbage fees that are not
collected is passed on to the rate payers; rates would be
increased because the City is required to compensate ACI for the
service.
Mayor Johnson stated that the problem is that everyone who pays
their bill subsidizes those who do not.
The Public Works Director stated that 23 residents on the list
included in the staff report have paid.
The Acting City Manager suggested that the Council adopt the
Resolution with direction for staff to resolve issues of concern
raised by residents tonight and provide a status on said claims
within two weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution,
including the Acting City Manager's suggestion [to direct staff
to resolve issues of concern and provide a status on said claims
within two weeks].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,8,"Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that individuals
appeared tonight or e-mailed the Council to contest their bill;
inquired whether the Council would allow individuals who have
not responded to contest their bills.
The Acting City Manager responded that everyone had the right to
either provide something in writing or come to the Hearing to
respond; stated that he does not see any way for other
individuals to be accommodated now.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-310) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute extension of the Harbor Bay Maritime Ferry Operating
Agreements for Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry Service (AHBFS) and
adopt associated budget.
The Acting City Manager stated that the Agreement is an
extension of an existing Agreement with Harbor Bay Maritime
(HBM) to operate the AHBFS between Bay Farm Island and San
Francisco; the Agreement is complicated because a good deal of
the funding comes through Regional Measure 1 Funds, which are
administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) ; HBM must achieve 40% revenue through fare box collections
in order to receive the funding through the City; the fare box
collection has dropped in the past few years; collection was 23%
last year, 31% the year before, and 32% the preceding year MTC
has notified the City that funding will no longer continue if
the 40% revenue through fare box is not achieved; MTC has
allowed the City an additional year; stated that the ferry was
down for four months last year and the cost of fuel has
practically doubled during the last two years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether on board labor costs was a
concern.
The Acting City Manager stated that the City is not a party to
negotiations between the Operator and the Union; the Union
contacted the City regarding concern with a reduction in the
work shift from eight hours to seven hours. eight-hour - work
shifts will be maintained per negotiations.
The Ferry Services Manager stated that HBM and the Union have
reached a contract agreement for the next year beginning July 1.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,9,"Mayor Johnson inquired where the fuel was bought, to which the
Ferry Services Manager responded that the fuel for the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry is purchased through Blue and Gold Fleet,
bought in bulk volume, and stored at Pier 39; AHBFS has a
contract with a fuel provider and is fueled at Pier 48.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the fuel rates were comparable,
to which the Ferry Services Manager responded there is
a
difference between 18 and 20 cents per gallon.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether HBM could fuel at Pier 39, to
which the Ferry Services Manager responded that there have been
discussions with Blue and Gold Fleet regarding fueling at Pier
39; insurance requirements make the possibility difficult and
costs would offset any benefit; there have been discussions with
the WTA regarding bulk purchases.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether gas could be purchased
ahead of time and locked in at lower prices, to which the Ferry
Services Manager responded that HBM does not purchase ahead of
time but that Blue and Gold Fleet does.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether purchasing gas ahead of
time would be a possibility for HBM, to which the Ferry Services
Manager responded there is a question of fuel storage
capability; relocating to Alameda Point is being reviewed.
Michael Torrey, Alameda, encouraged the Council to accept the
staff recommendation.
Scott Hennigh, Alameda, urged acceptance of the staff
recommendation; stated eliminating the 7:30 p.m. run is short
sighted and will decrease ridership; suggested capital reserve
funds be used to cover the cost of the 7:30 p.m. run and that
the Council consider a temporary reallocation of the Measure B
Funds toward advertising costs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was any way to avoid
eliminating the 7:30 p.m. run.
The Acting City Manager responded there would be approximately
11 to 15 riders lost with the elimination of the 7:30 p.m. run;
increased ridership through marketing efforts should result in
breaking even; reducing what is set aside for capital reserves
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,10,"ratio.
Councilmember Daysog stated that more information is needed on
the advertising strategy to properly evaluate the different
scenarios.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with cutting
the 7:30 p.m. run; riders are lost and not recovered when
services are down.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the advertising would start, to
which the Acting City Manager responded that some direct mail
advertising has already started.
The Ferry Services Manager stated a survey was conducted in May
inquiring whether commute patterns would remain the same if a 50
cent each way fare increase was implemented and the 7:30 p.m.
run was eliminated; 22-23% riders indicated there would be a
significant reduction in ferry usage; 50 to 60 riders per day
would be needed to make up the loss in a worst case scenario;
the survey indicates that the market potential exists in the
primary market, which is the Harbor Bay and the Fernside
Districts; tests on the secondary market, covering San Leandro
and Oakland, are being conducted.
The Acting City Manager stated retaining the 7:30 p.m. run is
important a three month trial would show whether increased
ridership would make up for the $2,500 loss per month.
Lorre Zuppan stated that she has not done an analysis of the
7:30 p.m. run; tracking the success of prior campaigns is
difficult; if ridership is not increased, keeping the 7:30 p.m.
run presents a risk.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,11,"Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether having the 7:30 p.m.
run would be better for marketing.
Ms. Zuppan responded that added features attract users.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that time is needed to allow the
marketing to work and be assessed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there would be more people on the 7:30
p.m. run now if the run was a desired feature; missing the
target would require putting in a lot of money or not meeting
the 40% fare box requirement and losing the entire ferry
operation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the break even number of
riders would be for the 7:30 p.m. run, to which Ms. Zuppan
responded 22 riders.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Executive Director of the WTA
had any thoughts on the matter.
Steve Castleburry, WTA Chief Executive Officer, stated there is
uncertainty in marketing; information obtained in surveys is
highly unreliable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is any information on the
impacts of cuts elsewhere.
Mr. Castleburry responded that the City of Larkspur did not lose
as many riders as anticipated; stated ferry ridership is up
compared to other services.
The Acting City Manager stated that part of the increased ferry
ridership is because the economy is starting to get a little
better having the trial period in the summer might not be good
because people are on vacation.
Mayor Johnson inquired about lost ridership last summer.
The Acting City Manager stated that last summer would not be a
good comparison because the ferry was down for four months.
The Public Works Director corrected the break even number of
riders for the 7:30 p.m. run to 36.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,12,"Councilmember deHaan stated taking one trip out per day is a
major change.
Steve Brimhall, President HBM, stated the capital reserve funds
do not apply against the fare box; HBM is not in a funding
position.
The Ferry Services Manager stated that the City has an
obligation to maintain ferryboats or pay back the grants used to
acquire the boats.
The Public Works Director suggested the recommendation might be
to accept the three-month trial subject to MTC's approval and
reaching an agreement with HBM.
Mayor Johnson suggested conveying to MTC that the City does not
want to lose more riders by cutting service and wants to do
everything possible to maintain the level of service and
increase the number of riders above the current level.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is any indication
that the June fare box recovery is trending upwards, to which
the Public Works Direction responded that he did not know.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how eliminating the 7:30 p.m. run
would impact ratios, to which the Acting City Manager responded
by 1%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is in favor of presenting
the proposal to MTC ; eliminated services are never recovered.
Councilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a month-and-a-half trial period
would be fine if a three-month trial period were too long.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation with the exception of eliminating the 7:30 p.m.
run contingent upon MTC allowing the City to preserve the 7:30
p.m. run for an approximate three-month trial period and
agreement with HBM.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,13,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-311) The following speakers spoke in favor of the
theatre/parking structure project : Pauline Kelley, Alameda,
Debbie George, Alameda, Michael Britt, Alameda Eyes Optometry
Catherine Brewer, Alameda; Melody Marr, executive Director,
Chamber of Commerce; Lorre Zuppan, Alameda; Kathy Leong,
President, Chamber of Commerce; Mel Waldorf, Alameda; Robb
Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) (submitted
handout) ; Frank George, Alameda; Lars Hanson, PSBA; Kate Pryor,
Alameda.
The following speakers expressed concern with the
theatre/parking structure project Bill Woodle, Alameda Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Richland Tester, Alameda; Morgan, Alameda
( submitted handout) ;
Kevin
Frederick,
Alameda;
Deborah
Overfield, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva,
Alameda; Steph Wades, Alameda.
Following Jon Spangler's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
inquired whether the theatre would cost $25 million.
The Acting City Manager responded that the parking structure and
the theatre cost is $25 million.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the theatre cost was $9
million.
The Development Services Manager responded that the historic
theatre project cost is $9.6 million; $10.5 million is for the
352 space parking structure; the multi screen cinema is a
combination of private and public dollars; $5.3 million has been
raised privately by the developer; there is a contribution of
$2.8 million in loans; the vertical features will be put into
the new theatre for an additional $760,000; the total project
cost is about $28 million with the developer's contribution.
Councilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report specifying
project costs.
Councilmember deHaan stated an economic feasibility study and
market study was performed in 1997; inquired whether the
operations of movie theatres have changed stated it would be
prudent to review an updated market study.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,14,"Mayor Johnson noted the matter was not on the agenda and Council
could not discuss the matter and could only ask questions.
Following Kate Pryor's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
requested a catalog on the website indicating where reports can
be found regarding the theatre and parking structurel stated
that the Planning Board has deferred the design review for both
the parking structure and theatre.
(05-312) Will Richards, Alameda, stated that Alameda growth is
inevitable; redevelopment projects should be reviewed on own
merits.
(05-313) ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that June 25
through June 26 is the annual Amateur Radio Field Day.
(05-314) Richard Neveln, Alameda, stated there has been no
planning for temporary bus stops during the Park Street and
Webster Street construction.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-315) Discussion of the proposed baseball stadium along
Alameda and Oakland's shared estuary.
Councilmember Daysog requested staff birddog the proposed
baseball stadium; stated the matter could be bad or good; noted
there is a shared interest in the estuary and the City of
Alameda should be part of the planning.
(05-316) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing
and Appeals Board, Housing Commission, Library Board, Planning
Board, and Social Service Human Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Randal S. Miller for reappointment to
the Historical Advisory Board; Edward Dependbrock for
reappointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board [remaining appointment continued] ; Nancy W.
Gormley and Garnetta S. King for reappointment to the Housing
Commission; Ruth K. Belikove and Alan D. Mitchell for
reappointment to the Library Board; Rebecca L. Kohlstrand
Parsons and Margaret McNamara for reappointment to the Planning
Board; Stewart Chen, Karen Hollinger Jackson, and Cynthia Wasko
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,15,"for reappointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:45 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
15
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 21, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05-293) Adjournment to closed session to consider : Public
Employment; Title City Manager
Following the closed session, Mayor Johnson announced that the
City Council discussed selection of the City Manager.
(05-294) Recommendation to approve Agreement Appointing Debra
Kurita as City Manager.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Agreement
appointing Debra Kurita.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 6:29 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
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 21, 2005- -6:40 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider :
(05-295 ) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the
performance of the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:40 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
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JUNE 21, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the special meeting at 8:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-296CC/05-032CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on April 5, 2005; and the Special Joint
City Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on June 7, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissione: deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-297CC/05-033CIC) Joint Public Hearing to review and approve
concept of Affordable Rental Housing at Island High as an eligible
use of District Housing Fund.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
The Development Manager for Housing provided a briefing on the
proposed concept.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether there would be a
targeted beneficiary for rental housing, to which the Development
Manager for Housing responded that the agreement allows the School
District to target beneficiaries to the extent allowable by law;
stated the School District would prefer to give priority to
District employees.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-21,19,"recommendation
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated there is an opportunity
to provide meaningful, affordable housing.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
June 21, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-23,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -JUNE 23, 2005- - -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note : Councilmember Matarrese arrived at 6:15
p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider
:
(05-317) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;
Employee: City Attorney.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting at 7:00 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
June 23, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-23,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY- -JUNE 23, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special joint meeting at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson; Board
Members Bonta, Chen, Franz, Flores-Witte,
Hanna, Hollinger Jackson, Wasko - 12.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog could not stay for the
entire meeting due to a scheduling conflict.
]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-318) - Work Session to discuss 2004 Board accomplishments and
goals; workgroup accomplishments and 2005 work plans for the
Assessment and Awareness Workgroup, Family Services Workgroup and
Sister City Workgroup; and Board directions for coming year.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special joint meeting at 9:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Social Service Human Relations Board
June 23, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-23.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY - - -JUNE 28, 2005- - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:22 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioner/Board Member Daysog, deHaan,
Gilmore, and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese - 1.
Note: Chair Johnson announced that Commissioner/Board Member
Matarrese would not be teleconferencing from El Salvador because
the phone connection was not working.
AGENDA ITEM
(05-034CIC) Discussion/review of the City Charter and related
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) policy, procedures, and management
practices.
Chair Johnson stated that the City Attorney was requested to
provide thoughts on emergency spending for outside counsel: noted
that the hiring of outside counsel is approved by the Council and
that some slight revisions need to be made to the CIC and ARRA By-
laws, etc. in order to provide consistency between the City
Council, CIC and ARRA.
Commissioner/Boare Member Daysog inquired whether the issue of
hiring outside counsel was related to determining what the
threshold would be.
Chair Johnson responded that the City Attorney was to provide
information on how much would be required to cover the interim
period before the matter was brought back to the Council.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she understood that
the matter would be addressed at a meeting in July.
Chair Johnson stated that a memo was received stating that an
outside attorney had been hired; the City Attorney indicated that
the issue regarding hiring of outside counsel applied to the
Council, not the CIC or ARRA.
The City Attorney distributed the minutes of the June 7, 2005
Council Meeting stated the Council requested a proposal from the
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
1
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,2,"City Attorney's office for a future meeting noted the hiring of
outside counsel was not part of the budget adoption.
Chair Johnson stated the matter could be brought back at the July 5
City Council Meeting if the Council action is not clear.
The City Attorney stated the matter is on the July 5 Council agenda
per Council's request for discussion in closed session; noted that
she was requested to provide a proposal at the last performance
evaluation.
Chair Johnson stated different interpretations of the Council's
actions at the June 7 Council Meeting are not necessary; the
Council can place the matter on the July 5 Council Meeting in open
session; that she does not believe the matter is a closed session
item.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that she distinctly
remembers that there was a certain amount of concern in discussing
authorized amounts in open session because of litigation
strategies.
Chair Johnson stated that the concept needs to be adopted in open
session.
The City Attorney stated that she is proceeding to provide a
proposal at the July 5 Closed Session Meeting in order to not
reveal litigation strategies and to respond to the Council's
request for additional oversight and threshold identification; any
budget amendments should subsequently be placed on an open session
agenda; at the last performance evaluation, the Council requested
that the matter initially be addressed in closed session.
Chair Johnson stated there is also direction that action has to be
consistent with the Charter.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson.
Chair Johnson stated that the Charter provides that the Council
consent to the hiring of outside counsel.
The City Attorney distributed an opinion by Robert Logan which
addressed budget appropriations and authorizations; stated that it
is appropriate for the Council to follow the pattern and practice
that has been in place for over 16 years and which was adopted at
no less than five public meetings where a budget appropriation for
the City Attorney was authorized; stated that she did understand
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
2
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,3,"the Mayor's request and would return with an oversight proposal.
Chair Johnson stated that the direction to operate consistently
with what the Charter provides has already been given to the City
Attorney.
The City Attorney concurred with Chair Johnson; stated that the
attorney retained by the Council in 1989 provided an analysis of
the direction regarding retention of outside counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council also gave direction regarding
the Charter stating that the Council consent is required to hire
outside attorneys.
The City Attorney stated that the consent has been given through
the budget in the past 16 years; the policy can be changed and
would be discussed on July 5th.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that the budget enables the
City Manager and department heads to hire individuals; the Council
does not need to be involved in the actual hiring but might want to
be involved in instances above or below certain thresholds; stated
that the Council is moving in the right direction.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the initial clarification
would be with the Charter; noted there is dispute between the City
Attorney and the Council; the Council feels that they have the
authority to consent to the hiring of outside legal counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that there is no need to hire an attorney to
provide an opinion on the language of the Charter; the language of
the Charter is very plain and clear.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council could move
forward if the language of the Charter has been determined.
Chair Johnson stated that there is a $470,000 litigation
contingency in Risk Management and an additional $350,000 for
Alameda Power & Telecom; noted that the City Attorney is stating
that the Council has consented to the hiring of outside counsel by
approving the line items in the budget over the past 16 years; the
Council has given a blanket authorization to the City Attorney to
hire outside counsel and that is not the level of oversight that
the Charter intends ; the Charter was drafted to provide needed
checks and balances; the City Attorney's office has five attorneys
and also spends a significant amount of money on outside counsel ;
stated that the Council should have more of a role in the hiring of
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
3
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,4,"outside counsel and needs to be more in line with the intention of
the Charter; changes can be made as time goes on and when the
Council feels more comfortable a lot of money is being spent on
outside attorneys and the Council has an obligation to be more
aware of outside attorney costs.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that defining the
parameters of discretion and how the discretion relates to Section
8-5 of the Charter is the issue; the Council is in the process of
defining discretionary parameters of ""may empower"" the City
Attorney or any other City office meets Council expectations
through the establishment of the budget i threshold parameters need
to be established; the Council is moving in the direction that will
work for both sides but will not be established tonight.
Chair Johnson stated that clear direction was given to the City
Attorney to bring the matter of hiring of outside counsel back to
the Council at the last Closed Session Meeting.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that his interpretation of
the Charter is that because there was no specific ordinance or
resolution defining ""may empower"" the past practice is still in
effect.
Chair Johnson stated that is not what she heard at the last
meeting.
The City Attorney stated that she is working on a proposal to be
presented to the City Council on July 5; that she hears what the
Council is saying and understands that there is a desire for
additional oversight the proposal will provide additional Council
involvement and discretion, and provide significantly less
discretion on the City Attorney's part.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not asking for less
discretion on the City Attorney's part; stated that Council should
do what the Charter says; the interpretation of the Charter could
be that the Council gives consent to the City Attorney to spend
money on outside attorneys by putting a line item in the budget or
the interpretation of the Charter can be that the Council is not
going to give consent by a line item; the latter was made clear at
the June 7 Joint City Council, CIC, ARRA Meeting the Council is
allocating $470,000 but the City Attorney does not have the
discretion to spend it without the Council's consent.
The Acting City Manager stated that the [June 7] action of the
Council was to adopt the budget ; Chair Johnson requested the City
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
4
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,5,"Attorney to bring the hiring of outside counsel to Council but the
matter was not part of the motion; that he is not sure how many
other Councilmembers gave the direction to the City Attorney; staff
follows direction given by the Council ; it is not necessary to have
a motion and vote; the City Attorney would provide a proposal to
determine the extent of Council overview; that he questions whether
the City Attorney should hire outside counsel or come to the
Council voluntarily to request consent of hiring outside counsel.
Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney could come to
Council when the hiring of outside counsel was necessary in the
interim, to which the City Attorney responded that she would not
hire outside counsel until July 5; noted that there are existing
counsel, bills and litigation.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is not addressing attorneys
that are already working for the City.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired whether the City Attorney
intended to hire new outside counsel in the next ten days, to which
the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated the Council requested
a
summary of existing litigation and hopes to have the information
provided at the next meeting ARRA has a substantial amount of
litigation; noted there are fixed and variable portions of the
budget Council would like to keep control of outside counsel
spending the oversight philosophy is important.
Chair Johnson stated that all the Council agreed that there was a
need to provide some authority for emergency spending.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that that it is important
to establish a policy that is consistent across all governing
bodies.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the Council requested
to be involved in interim decisions and hopes to be receiving said
information.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council requested a list of
attorneys, including scope of service; the information should be
presented before the next Council meeting; inquired whether the
City Attorney's proposal would be in the agenda packet or presented
in advance; stated she would prefer that the proposal was not
distributed to the Council on the night of the meeting.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
5
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,6,"The City Attorney stated the information would be provided to the
Council before the City Council Meeting; stated that she would
bring the proposal to the July 5 Closed Session Meeting with the
advanced copy of all information requested; she hears the Council
direction in terms of a desire for policy direction to provide the
additional thresholds and Council involvement and oversight for all
governing bodies matters would be discussed and direction taken
from the Council.
Chair Johnson stated that she does not expect that any outside
counsel would need to be hired within the next week, inquired what
was decided on the interim.
The City Attorney responded that she would like the Council to keep
a reasonable, fair and equitable approach; all department heads are
authorized to spend monies when the budget is adopted $75,000 or
less is the current amount without Council authorization.
Chair Johnson stated that no one else in the City has authorization
to spend over $800,000.
The City Attorney reiterated her request for a reasonable approach.
Chair Johnson stated that the Council is always fair and
reasonable; stated that she made it clear at the budget meeting
that the Council is not changing the amount of the City Attorney'
budget but is exercising Council responsibility.
Commissioner/Board Member deHaan stated that the direction for
other City departments might change also; the City is in
extraordinary times in reviewing the budget, controlling staffing,
and developing needed services.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council does not
want to make it significantly more difficult for the City Attorney
to be able to do her job.
Commissioner/Board Member Daysog stated that delivery of successful
services to the residents is ultimately the end responsibility; the
question of reasonableness is not incidental; rapid responses are
necessary for the legal team; the City is shooting itself in the
foot if rules do not allow for rapid responses.
The City Attorney stated that she is fully confident that the
proposal submitted on July 5 will be adequate for all purposes.
Chair Johnson requested that the City Attorney summarize her
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
6
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,7,"understanding of the Council's direction.
The City Attorney stated that the direction from the Council was to
provide a proposal that addresses issues regarding the Charter,
Council oversight in order to provide a threshold to limitation of
the City Attorney's current budgeting authority, and to address
other issues discussed, i.e., an RFQ panel of attorneys.
Chair Johnson stated the Council does not intend to limit the
dollar amount; the Council could spend $800,000 on one case; the
focus is on hiring outside counsel.
The Acting City Manager stated that sometimes it is not known how
much money will be necessary for hiring outside attorneys in cases
where the City gets sued; usually there is a proposal from a
consultant advising what the cost will be when other departments
hire consultants; the Council would like to be advised who the
outside counsel would be.
Chair Johnson stated it is not necessary to have a dollar amount in
contracts; the Council needs to be advised who the attorney is that
would handle the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that it is not in the interest of the
public for the Council to be involved in every single hiring
decision; there should be a threshold.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council does not want to be
involved in every single hiring decision.
Chair Johnson stated there would be a greater awareness and
sensitivity to hiring outside counsel; there have been instances
where the Council has questioned why outside counsel was hired; the
issue is not a dollar limit; stated the Council could discuss the
type of issues that should involve the Council; the City Attorney
could address the matter in her proposal.
Councilmember deHaan requested a summary of litigation and the
estimates for finalization; requested that the Council receive
advanced notice when the amount of a consultant's contract is
anticipated to increase.
Councilmember deHaan stated that all managers should be able to
provide the Council with an on-going ledger.
Chair Johnson stated that the task of providing the ledger to the
Council should not be burdensome; requested that the City Attorney
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
7
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-06-28,8,"advise the Council if the task would be burdensome.
Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore stated that the Council would
rather have the City Attorney perform legal work than
administrative work; stated the City Attorney is obviously more
valued as a lawyer.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, Secretary
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Community Improvement
Commission and Alameda Reuse and
8
Redevelopment Authority Meeting
June 28, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-06-28.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:59 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-322)
Mayor Johnson announced that she would present the
Resolution Commending Alameda Police Department Chief Burnham
Matthews [paragraph no. 05-324] prior to the Proclamations, Special
Orders of the Day and Announcements.
(05-323) The Acting City Manager announced that the report from the
Housing Task Force [paragraph no. 05-334] would be continued
because
the Housing Task Force requested 30 more days to report
back to the Council.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(05-324) Resolution No. 13861, ""Commending Alameda Police
Department Chief Burnham Matthews for His Contributions to the City
of Alameda. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Resolution to Chief Matthews;
thanked Chief Matthews for his service to the City.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Chief Matthews thanked the Council for the Resolution; stated that
it has been an honor to serve the Council and the community.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was delighted that Chief
Matthews plans to stay in the community; noted that Chief Matthews
has given a great deal of personal attention to the children of the
community.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Chief Matthews has done a
marvelous job and will leave a legacy.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Chief Matthews for his service;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,2,"stated he appreciates Chief Matthews making the Police Department
an integral part of the community.
Supervisor Lai Bitker presented a proclamation on behalf of the
Board of Supervisors; stated she has enjoyed working with Chief
Matthews and appreciates his work with children.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-325) Presentation by the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society to the City of Alameda of a Historic Preservation Award for
the adaptive re-use of the City Hall West Building at Alameda
Point.
Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society,
presented the Award to Mayor Johnson.
Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Brady and stated that the Award would be
displayed in a prominent place in City Hall.
(05-326) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave an update on the Library Project.
Mayor Johnson stated the Project is progressing very well.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when the cranes would arrive.
The Project Manager responded that the cranes would tentatively
arrive on July 25; street closure would be necessary from 6:00 a.m.
for about four or five hours for two days.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City is being environmentally
conscious with the construction of public buildings.
The Project Manager stated the bid received a year ago was
approximately 20% over budget. thanked the Council for the
foresight to allow the Contract to be negotiated.
Mayor Johnson noted that the Pentagon is a LEED certified building.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 21% project completion
was on time.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated an
expanded budget and schedule presentation would be provided every
six months; stated that another city received revised bids which
came in 25% over budget.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,3,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( *05-327) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of June 14,
2005, Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on June 21,
2004, and Special City Council Meeting of June 23, 2005. Approved.
(*05-328) Ratified bills in the amount of $7,377,422,92
(*05-329) Resolution No. 13862, ""Annual Adjustment of the Citywide
Development Impact Fee by the Construction Cost Index. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-330) - Resolution No. 13863, ""Adoption of Resolution Reappointing
Randall S. Miller as a Member of the Historical Advisory Board.
""
Adopted;
(05-330A) Resolution No. 13864, ""Reappointing Edward Depenbrock as
a Member of the Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals
Board. "" Adopted;
(05-330B) Resolution Nos. 13865 and 13866, ""Reappointing Nancy W.
Gormley and Garnetta S. King as Members of the Housing Commission.
""
Adopted;
(05-330C) Resolution Nos. 13867 and 13868, ""Reappointing Ruth K.
Belikove and Alan D. Mitchell as Members of the Library Board. ""
Adopted;
(05-330D) Resolution Nos. 13869 and 13870, ""Reappointing Rebecca L.
Kohlstrand Parsons and Margaret McNamara as Members of the Planning
Board. "" Adopted
(05-330E) Resolution Nos. 13871, 13872 and 13873, ""Reappointing
Stewart Chen, Karen Hollinger Jackson, and Cynthia Wasko as
Members of the Social Service Human Relations Board. Adopted;
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,4,"The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Gormley, Ms. King, Ms. Belikove, Ms. McNamara,
and Mr. Chen.
(05-331) Ordinance No. 2942, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
to Change the Name of the Public Art Advisory Committee to Public
Art Commission, Transfer Reporting from Recreation and Park
Commission to City Council, and Transfer Staffing from the
Recreation and Park Department to the Planning and Building
Department by Amending Subsections 30-65.3 (Contribution
Requirements), 30-65. 4 (Public Art), 30-65.5 (Alameda Public Art
Fund) , 30-65.7 (Public Art Advisory Committee) 30-65.8
(Application and Approval Procedures for Placing Public Art on
Private Property) 30-65.10 (Guidelines for Approval), and 30-
65.11 (Appeal to the City Council) of Section 30-65 (Public Art in
New Commercial, Industrial, Residential and Municipal
Construction) "" Finally passed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the function of the Public Art
Advisory Committee is important and deserves commission status.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(
05-332) Recommendation to accept report on proposed PERS Golden
Handshake Retirement under California Government Code Section
20903.
The Acting City Manager stated the matter was on the agenda to
request approval to contribute funding to the PERS Retirement
System on behalf of employees who are being laid off and are
eligible to retire. employees who retire within 90 days of the
adoption of the resolution would be eligible; savings are created
by reducing the number of positions in the City and allowing some
employees to receive up to two years service credit.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there would be a net savings,
to which the Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the last Golden Handshake
occurred, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in 1992
and again in 1995 or 1996.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the savings materialized, to
which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all eligible employees have
signed up for the Golden Handshake, to which the Senior Management
Analyst responded four employees have expressed interest.
Mayor Johnson stated tight fiscal times would continue and that she
appreciates the Acting City Manager's creative and least painful
way of reducing the work force.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be any health
benefit obligation, to which the Senior Management Analyst
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-333) Reconsideration of acceptance of Management Practice #37.
Mayor Johnson stated that restrictions on Council communications
should not go beyond the Charter; inquired whether there was a
previous management practice on communications.
The Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; the previous
practice stated that the Council could ask questions of any
employee; an employee would proceed to respond to the Councilmember
if the response would take no more than 30 minutes of the
employee's time; the employee would notify the department head and
the department head would notify the City Manager questions that
require a lot of research would pull an employee away from their
work; that he has requested staff to advise him if the question
requires more than 30 minutes to respond; Councilmembers may not
realize that the request can turn into direction to do work, which
is not allowed under the Charter the current practice asks for the
Council to make a direct inquiry to a department head rather than
an employee; the department head responds with a copy to the City
Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated that defining an inquiry was inconsistent with
the Charter; an inquiry should be reasonably brief in nature noted
that she prefers the Acting City Manager's previous management
practice.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the request for inquiry is
overly bureaucratic and was not anticipated or defined in the
Charter; suggested that the Council direct the City Manager to
provide a draft of a new management practice; the first action
would be to revoke the current practice in favor of a new one; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,6,"Council should wait to act on the new practice until the new City
Manager is on board to ensure an understanding of the new
management practice.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council should not bore too
deep; he would prefer a modified policy.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council needs to be very conscientious
about requests; the Council should schedule an appointment to meet
with a department head and be courteous to staff.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated
recognition of staff's workload is common courtesy; the Council's
need to dig deep should be directed to the City Manager and raised
at Council meetings.
Councilmember deHaan stated that his experience with staff
communication has been excellent; the Council needs to be
respectful; in-depth inquiries need to be directed to the City
Manager.
Councilmember Daysog stated that improvements should be made when
there is an opportunity to do so; his ability to represent
residents' interests has not been burdened or hindered by the
current management practice; stated he would welcome more
information that addresses what is meant by inquiryi the current
management practice is sufficient and represents the necessary
separation of powers between the City Manager and that of the City
Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council direction was to
have a new management practice drafted for discussion and action at
a future date.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated the Acting City
Manager would provide some ideas.
( (05-334) Report from the Housing Task Force regarding strategies to
prevent mass evictions and provide for low-income housing. Not
heard.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-335) - Randy Watkins, Alameda, stated that the cost to build the
garage, renovate the theatre, and build the cineplex is $45
million; there is only $10 million in revenues from the project;
the lease is only $7,000 per month for cineplex and commercial
lease space; the agreement allows the lessor to purchase a site
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,7,"after five years of leasing at a fair market value or prorated
cost; urged the Council to be more fiscally conservative.
(05-336) - Deborah James, Alameda, thanked the Council for the West
End Teen Program; noted that Goodwill offers free on-line computer
training stated there is also a teen center at Alameda High
School.
Mayor Johnson stated the Alameda High School teen center is at the
Veterans Building; suggested information on computer courses be
provided to the Recreation and Parks Department also.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-337) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee and Transportation
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Lee Perez for appointment to the Oakland
Chinatown Advisory Committee and John Knox White and Eric
Schatmeier to the Transportation Commission.
(05-338) Councilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure
budget would be presented to the Council, to which the Acting City
Manager responded in August.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the 10-year budget would be
presented to the Council.
The Acting City Manager responded in August; stated he cannot
provide an exact date because the 10-year forecast model is being
prepared in conjunction with the outside auditor; the Public Works
Director is preparing the infrastructure budget for the second City
Council meeting in August.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:01 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
7
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-05,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 5, 2005 - - 5:35 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-319) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title City
Attorney.
(05-320) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9. Number of cases: One.
(05-321) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator:
Acting City Manager; Employee Organizations : Alameda Police
Managers Association (APMA) ; Alameda Fire Management Association
(AFMA) ; Management and Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) :
Alameda Police Officers Association (APOA) and International
Association of Firefighters (IAFF) .
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting
at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the closed session at 9:05 p.m.
Following the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Performance Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of
the City Attorney and requested an open session agenda item;
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
permission to waive attorney/client privilege on the July 2000
document and produce as part of the subpoena; and regarding
Conference with Labor Negotiator, the Council obtained a briefing
from the Acting City Manager gave direction and requested
information.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
special meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
July 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - JULY 19, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:42 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-342) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating
Special Newsrack Districts [ 105-357] would not be heard.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-343) Proclamation recognizing Alamedans for Responsible
Transit Shelters (ARTS) and volunteer efforts to install new bus
shelters.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Reyla Graber,
Pat Gannon, Jeannie Graham-Gilliat, Lee Harris, and Mel Sanderson;
stated that ARTS worked very hard to ensure that there would be
unadvertised bus shelters; thanked ARTS and supporters who
contributed money to buy the bus shelters.
Reyla Graber thanked the Council for the recognition.
Lee Harris thanked ARTS; stated that he was impressed with the hard
work and efforts of everyone involved.
Mel Sanderson, President of the Clara Barton Foundation, stated
being available for ARTS was a pleasure.
Susan Decker, Alameda Transit Advocates, thanked the Council and
ARTS for working hard to get bus shelters in Alameda; stated she is
looking forward to new bus shelters on Park and Webster Streets.
(05-344) - Presentation by the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) on the 21st Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Blake Brydon, Chair of the Art and Wine Faire, invited the
community to attend the Faire on July 30 and July 31 and presented
wine glasses to the Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,2,"Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Acting City Manager to execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase [05-
348], the recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant [05-349]
and the recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids [05-350] were removed from the consent calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-345) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Social
Service Human Relations Board Meeting of June 23, 2005 and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on July 5, 2005.
Approved.
Councilmember Daysog requested that the word ""scheduling"" be
inserted prior to ""conflict"" in the June 23, 2005 minutes [under
Roll Call] .
(*05-346 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,960,630.82.
(*05-347) Recommendation to accept the work of Clyde G. Steagall,
Inc., for Alameda Point Pier 3 electrical upgrades, No. P.W. 08-02-
08. Accepted.
(05-348) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute a Contract with Masayuki Nagase for fabrication and
installation of public art work, Cadence of Water, at the new Main
Library.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to see a better
representation of the artwork.
The Library Director introduced Masayuki Nagase; stated Mr. Nagase
has created dozens of public art installations and was the
unanimous choice of the Art and Recognition Team.
Mr. Nagase stated the artwork consists of eight medallions
measuring 4 feet to 7 feet high; the water element theme represents
the City's surrounding bay and beach areas.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,3,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the art would be done in limestone.
Mr. Nagase responded in the affirmative; stated the angle of the
forms would catch the morning and afternoon light.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-349) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to accept the
$404,087 Awarding of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant for a
firefighting training trailer and authorizing funding for the
City's matching portion of $80,817 from the General Fund Reserves.
Mayor Johnson requested that future reports include on-going
maintenance and operating costs.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was an order of
magnitude for the maintenance and operating costs for comparison
purposes.
The Fire Chief responded that the maintenance costs are expected to
be low; the majority of the cost would be for propane gasi there
would be an additional cost for moving the trailer out of the area
because a diesel truck trailer would be needed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City has a tractor.
The Fire Chief responded that he has not checked with the Public
Works Department; using a City tractor would be the first choice.
Mayor Johnson stated training locally might provide a cost savings.
The Fire Chief stated the closest facility for live fire training
is Livermore, which is too far away for on-duty personnel: the
community was concerned with the smoke generated by the live fire
training at the LinOaks Motel.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-350 - ) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for replacement of three (3) marked police vehicles.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,4,"Councilmember deHaan stated that the Council requested a more
detailed Citywide vehicle inventory.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a written, Citywide
policy; noted Police Department needs would differ from Public
Works; stated the supplemental report indicates other cities
replace vehicles at higher mileage; requested that the policy
include mileage replacement comparisons with other cities and
explanation of why the City replaces vehicles with lower mileage.
The Acting Police Captain stated that a 65,000 to 75,000 mile
vehicle replacement is not abnormal; the City garage mechanic is
concerned with the idle hours.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the number of vehicles that are
replaced may not be the same as before because of tough budget
times; the City might need to go longer before replacing vehicles.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he looks forward to receiving a
policy with input from the Public Works Department i inquired what
would be the impact if a six-month deferral; inquired whether
vehicles have hour meters.
The Acting Police Captain responded that hour meters are not
installed; a six-month deferral would be difficult; the vehicles
take a beating.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the three vehicles are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,5,"currently in service, to which the Acting Police Captain responded
in the affirmative
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council should review vehicle
replacement in terms of protection and service to the residents;
the Police Department needs the best equipment or there could be
safety issues; six-month deferral is not an option.
Mayor Johnson stated more detailed information on vehicle
maintenance costs is needed; there is no explanation why the
vehicles are to be replaced.
The Acting City Manager stated that the matter would be brought
back to the Council in August with more information.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter should be brought to
Council with more justification on why the three vehicles need to
be replaced; inquired whether the vehicles have failed in the field
and whether there has been a lapse in service, other problems or
potential safety issues.
The Acting Police Captain responded there have not been significant
problems with the vehicles failing in the field; history has shown
that as mileage increases problems could arise.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested information on trade-in value; stated
the City might get a higher trade-in value now than in a year.
The Acting Police Captain stated that vehicles become inoperable
because of safety reasons; vehicles need to be available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired the number of vehicles and the number
of employees assigned to the vehicles, to which the Acting Police
Captain responded 23 vehicles are used by 43 officers.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how much a police vehicle costs, to
which the Acting Police Captain responded $32,000.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog
regarding not deferring replacement for six months.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many hours per day vehicles are
used, to which the Acting Police Captain responded that the
majority of the vehicles are used 24 hours per day.
Mayor Johnson requested that a written policy be brought back to
the Council at the first or second City Council meeting in August.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,6,"Councilmember deHaan requested that the policy address all vehicles
Citywide.
Mayor Johnson requested that the policy address all police
vehicles, not just patrol vehicles.
(*05-351) - Recommendation to appoint Lee Perez as a representative
to the Oakland Chinatown Advisory Committee. Accepted.
(*05-352) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to
execute an amendment to the Contract with MV Student
Transportation, increasing the budget by $8,000, and extending the
Contract to August 15, 2005. Accepted.
(
(*05-353) - Recommendation to approve an Agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP in the amount of $40,000 for federal legislative
advocacy, and appropriate the $40,000 from the General Fund
reserves. Accepted.
( *05-354) Resolution No. 13874, ""Approving Parcel Map No. 8574
(Harbor Bay Parkway and North Loop Road) . "" Adopted.
(*05-355)
Resolution No. 13875, ""Adopting the Findings for the
Non-Native Spartina Eradication Program Contained in the Final
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact
Report Prepared by California State Coastal Conservancy, Adopting a
Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and Approving an Agreement for Funding from the
State of California Coastal Conservancy to Implement Spartina
Eradication and Mitigation Measures. "" Adopted.
(*05-356) Resolution No. 13876, ""Granting Another Designated Period
for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under
Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees'
Retirement System and California Government Code Section 20903. ""
Adopted.
(*05-357) Adoption of Resolution Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street Business and the West Alameda
Business Districts as Authorized in Alameda Municipal Code Section
22-7, Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article I
Streets) Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) Not heard.
(*05-358) Resolution No. 13877, ""Authorizing Filing of a Notice of
Exemption for Acquisition of the Alameda Belt Line. Adopted.
(*05-359) - Resolution No. 13878, ""Accepting the Findings of the
Cross Alameda Trail Feasibility Study."" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,7,"REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-360) - Resolution No. 13879, ""Appointing John W. KnoxWhite as a
Member of the Transportation Commission. "" Adopted; and
(05-360A) Resolution No. 13880, ""Appointing Eric Schatmeier as a
Member of the Transportation Commission. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented the
members of the Transportation Commission with Certificates of
Appointment.
(05-361) Public hearing to consider revisions to the Development
Regulations (ZA05-0003) contained within Chapter XXX of the Alameda
Municipal Code (AMC) more commonly referred to as the Zoning
Ordinance, with respect to building height limits and number of
stories exceptions to minimum side yard requirements for additions
to existing residences, the definition for replacement-in-kind
off-street parking regulations and reconstruction of non-conforming
residential structures; and
(05-361A) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations). Introduced.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief overview of the proposed
revisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 'replacement-in-kin definition
would apply to the design guidelines and solve problems that
residents are having at Harbor Bay when replacing aluminum-sliding
windows.
The Supervising Planner stated that the guidelines state that
materials that are appropriate for the style of the house should be
used.
Mayor Johnson stated residents should not have to go to the
Planning Board to replace windows because of staff's interpretation
of the guidelines; Harbor Bay residents are not getting permits
because they have been told aluminum-sliding windows are not
allowed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,8,"The Supervising Planner stated that she was not aware of staff
disallowing aluminum sliding windows as long as the windows were an
appropriate style for the house.
Mayor Johnson stated that ""appropriate style"" is a very subjective
term; muntins are prohibited; Council did not intend to have any
prohibitions when the guidelines were approved.
The Supervising Planner stated the guidelines include a one-year
trial period to iron out the bugs.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council adopted the guidelines with
the understanding that they would be reasonably applied; a Citywide
prohibition would require that the matter be brought back to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the guidelines do not prohibit
anything, but provide direction.
Mayor Johnson stated that internal muntins between double-paned
windows are prohibited Citywide; the Council did not have any
expectation that there would be prohibitions in the guidelines.
The Acting City Manager stated that internal muntins are addressed
under a heading of what should be allowed; that staff has been
given direction to review each case individually.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has a diverse housing type;
there cannot be one rule that applies to every house.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with changing
requirements for second story setbacks. noted there have been two
or three issues regarding blockage of sunlight in the past two
years; that he would like to have a separate vote on second story
setback regulations if the matter is voted on tonight.
The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was
referring to the three-foot setback which allows going straight up
or the additional two-foot setback required with an existing five-
foot setback.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he was referring to remaining
with the status quo in all instances; a process can be followed to
receive an exception.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether an existing roof pitch could
be replicated.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,9,"The Supervising Planner responded as long as the height limit is
not exceeded.
Councilmember deHaan stated that closing down the roof pitch to
stay within the height limit creates architectural problems.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponent : Ken Carvalho, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the Public
portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the
direction to review roof pitch and window issues.
Councilmember Daysog requested to have a separate vote on second
story setbacks.
Councilmember deHaan amended his motion to exclude second story
setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance provisions
on second story setbacks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember Daysog - 1.
(05-362) Public hearing to consider Zoning Text Amendment ( ZA05 -
0002) , amending Alameda Municipal Code Section 30-4.8(c) to add
""Boutique Theater"" as an allowable use in the C-1 zoning district,
subject to Use Permit approval. Applicant : Alameda Theatre Project
Inc. Address All Neighborhood Business Districts (C-1) ;
(05-362A) Resolution No. 13881, ""Adopting a Negative Declaration
for ZA05-0002. "" Adopted; and
(05-362B) Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Alameda
Municipal Code by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted
by Use Permit within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning
District of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) . Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,10,"Proponents : David Hart, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Susan Older, Alameda: Peter MacDonald,
representing Mark Haskett Blake Brydon, Alameda; Bernard Clark,
Alameda; Mark Haskett, Alameda: and Ami Dimusheva, Alameda.
Opponent : Former Councilmember Barbara Thomas, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to respond to the issue of providing
notice to C-2 zoning areas [raised by Ms. Thomas]
The Supervising Planner stated the C-2 Zoning District permits
theaters, including movie theaters, as a permitted use; theaters do
not have to go through the use permit process that the proposed
text amendment would require for the C-1 district.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [movie theater ] use is already
permitted in the C-2 district, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated speakers were surprised that the
matter was before the Council; the normal process is being
followed; nothing is being hidden; the process is completely open
and public; the public should be aware that the action is not
redundant and is the way business is conducted.
Mayor Johnson noted the Council had not considered the issue
before.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that seventeen
areas could be affected; hopefully, there are enough safeguards
not all [C-1] areas have the same attributes of the [theater]
location on Central Avenue; inquired whether there are outstanding
code issues at the cinema.
The Acting City Manager responded the one [outstanding] issue is
the projection booth; stated the Applicant has been working
cooperatively with the Building Department; the issue is clearance
around the projector.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the initial life safety
issues were resolved, to which the Acting City Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the outstanding [projector]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,11,"issue would be corrected.
Mr. MacDonald, the Applicant's attorney, responded that the
Applicant has all materials ready to be submitted tomorrow; the
Building Official cannot accept the application until after the
zoning change is approved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board does not have the
authority to enact zoning changes and only makes recommendations
to
the Council therefore, the matter had to come before Council the
matter before the Council is not approving the Central Cinema; the
change will affect seventeen zones in the City; other people might
consider a similar business if Mr. Haskett is successful; the
approval is not for just one theater in one location; that she is
concerned that there could be more than one boutique theater in a
neighborhood.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is interested in just rezoning the
one C-1 district [at Central Avenue and 9th Street] noted the
Council was not approving just Mr. Haskett's operation; stated Mr.
Haskett could sell the business and neighbors might not like the
new owner or the types of movies the new owner shows; the Rocky
Horror Picture Show could be shown three times a day seven days a
week; the City can only regulate adult movies; the approval would
allow other cinemas in other areas with other operators; inquired
whether there could be a restriction that if Mr. Haskett sold his
operation, the Use Permit would not go to the next operator.
Mr. MacDonald stated that he was asked to respond publicly as to
whether they would consent to the request; the rule is that a Use
Permit runs with the land and cannot be personalized the general
rule is that there are considerations built into the Use Permit to
allow the Use Permit to be revoked if things happen which are not
consistent with the Use Permit.
Mayor Johnson stated the City can only regulate adult movies; there
might be another type of operator that would want to take over the
business; the neighbors like Mr. Haskett and like what he is doing;
her concern is that he might sell the business.
Mr. MacDonald stated one reason people build up businesses is to
have something that can be sold; not being able to sell the
business means said effort could never be achieved; to regulate the
type of movies or operators are over and above the terms of
reasonably conditioned Use Permit and would destroy the value of
the business.
Mayor Johnson stated the neighbors should understand that if Mr.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,12,"Haskett sells his business to someone else, they might not like the
types of movies the next operator shows.
Mr. Clark stated the issues being raised are valid; there should
not be concern over the type of movies showing, other than adult
movies the use would be revoked if anything caused a public
nuisance, such as being too loud.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would not want a theater in her
neighborhood; that she has concerns with imposing the regulation on
the sixteen other C-1 zoning areas and is not convinced that the
zoning could not be changed for just the one area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the permit runs with the land; basing a
decision on a particular owner is a bad policy; her decision will
be based on the merit of the use, not the owner.
Councilmember deHaan requested staff to address whether the use
could be limited to just one area.
The City Attorney stated the Mayor prefers to deal with the one
case, rather than Citywide; after analyzing the law carefully and
understanding said preference, she has to take responsibility for
the legal opinion that the issue must be dealt with Citywide.
Mayor Johnson inquired why two or three [C-1] districts in more
commercial areas could not be made a different zone; stated there
are C-1 zones in the Park Street and Webster Street areas adjacent
to more commercial areas; some C-1 zones are in very residential
areas; inquired why a few C-1 zones could not be called something
different and boutique theaters could be allowed in said areas,
without changing the existing geographic boundaries.
The Supervising Planner stated staff tried to create criteria for
the C-1 districts; finding a solution is very difficult because the
areas are so diverse; the amount of traffic was reviewed all
districts have adjacent residential areas.
Mayor Johnson inquired why three districts in more commercial areas
could not be renamed and boutique theaters could be allowed in said
areas; stated the geographic area of the zoning district would not
be changed; only the name would be changed and boutique theaters
could be permitted.
The Supervising Planner stated if Council could direct which
districts and why, staff could review the matter; staff was having
difficulty with determining why [the reason for selecting said
districts].
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,13,"Mayor Johnson stated the Council could not do so tonight.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether live theater with
unlimited seating is already allowed in all C-1 districts, to which
the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated putting a ceiling of 49 seats
restricts risk to and impact on the neighborhood; the same concerns
exist with live theater; some performances might not be wanted in
neighborhoods; allowing a movie theater has less impact than a live
theater ; there is not a huge risk; the existing business would be
legalized; that he would be happy with only selecting several of
the areas as a trial; there is not a great impact on the other
sixteen districts since live theaters with unlimited seating are
permitted.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with Central
Cinema, but would like to restrict the regulation as much as
possible; if the use could be restricted to a small number of C-1
areas or if very residential C-1 areas could be eliminated, the
City should do soi although live theater has been allowed for a
long time, allowing boutique theaters now should be done in a more
restrictive way; that she supports the station business districts,
which are part of Alameda's historyi the stations have to keep
going to create a walk-able community; however, the areas have
conflicts because residences are adjacent to businesses; that she
would like to go forward with Central Cinema, while restricting the
use to as few C-1 areas as possible; the matter of limiting the
areas has not been thoroughly reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there have been requests for
live theaters in other areas, to which the Supervising Planner
responded the only one she is aware of is the Altarena.
The Acting City Manager stated staff had multiple meetings on how
to reduce the number of areas; there was concern about spot zoning
staff did extraordinary noticing to ensure residents around the
station areas were aware of the proposed change the Council could
move forward tonight and staff could come back at a later date to
undo portions [limit number of districts].
Mayor Johnson stated her goal is to limit the use to as few areas
as possible; one idea is to name several areas a different zoning
districti people do not notice use until there is a problem.
Councilmember Daysog stated [Central Cinema's ] start was high
drama, but has potential to be a feel good story; time will only
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,14,"tell if the Cinema will be a one hit wonder or a movie for the
ages; the issues that the Mayor is bringing up can be tackled;
there is enough information to proceed with the action tonight;
issues raised can be addressed; that he doubts many people will
submit applications for theaters; there is a window of opportunity
to move forward with the theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review making the
boutique theater regulations apply to all theaters, eliminating the
possibility of having a 200 seat live theater.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion;
stated that staff could review both issues.
The City Attorney stated the Council could direct that the zoning
text amendment be brought to the Planning Board for an additional
amendment in terms of applying restrictions on live theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a flood of people will not try to
get into the theater business; there is cap on the number of seats;
the risk is fairly low; the regulations provide definition for what
is already an unrestricted business; the two seem no different,
except for the fact that there would be a movie projector instead
of actors in front of the audience.
Mayor Johnson stated that she supports the suggestion to go forward
and bring back modifications; concurred with Councilmember
Matarrese's suggestion to restrict live theaters.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
[adoption of the resolution and introduction of the ordinance] with
the direction to come back with modifications to provide better
control and planning, including exploring limiting the number of
districts where the activity will be allowed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she could not support the change
based on the merit of the operator instead of policy the
modifications that will return might address her concerns.
(05-363) Recommendation to approve a revised Donor Recognition and
Named Gifts Policy for the Library.
The Acting City Manager noted that staff provided a new set of
photographs.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,15,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether name plaques would be placed on
shelves, to which the Library Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the names would remain on shelves
forever; stated $100 does not seem high enough for having a name
remain forever.
The Library Director stated the names remain for the life of the
item, not the life of the library; the name would not remain if a
shelf is replaced.
Mayor Johnson stated $100 does not seem like a large amount.
The Library Director stated setting a reasonable amount could raise
a lot of money; $1 million was raised mostly from $100 shelves in
another library.
Councilmember Matarrese noted shelves, which only cost $100, might
last longer than chairs, which are $500; stated that the policy is
a good way to raise money.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is maintenance involved
with the plaques.
The Library Director responded possibly, but problems with plaques
are minimal.
Councilmember deHaan stated plastic plaques could be damaged.
The Library Director stated an inexpensive, but durable and
attractive, shelf tag would be used.
Dr. Jeptha Boone, Alameda Free Library Foundation President, stated
the foundation was formed 6¹/² years ago to raise money for the
library; the foundation has raised $65,000 and is trying to raise
$600,000 for art, branches and collections; urged approval of the
policy.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-364) Consideration of waiving attorney client privilege of
September 12, 2003 and April 10, 2001 legal opinions regarding
vehicle allowance for City Manager and City Attorney.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,16,"The City Attorney stated that she would step down during the agenda
item and the next agenda item [paragraph no. 05-365], which have to
do with her Contract.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council has a copy of the legal
opinion; Council can vote to make it available to the public; there
is nothing in the opinion that needs to be confidential.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of waiving attorney client
privilege restrictions on the memos.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the opinion is an interpretation of a Contract
provision; last year, she was informed that the City Manager's
vehicle allowance had increased; in November, she asked the City
Attorney to review whether the City Manager's vehicle allowance had
changed; the response she received back was it had not changed; a
Councilmember then learned that the vehicle allowance for the City
Manager was $372; Councilmembers questioned how the vehicle
allowance was increased because the Contract states that the
vehicle allowance is $250; Council asked the Human Resources
Director to check on the matter; last week, the response back from
the Human Resources Director was that a legal opinion was obtained
from outside counsel that indicated that the vehicle allowance
should be increased because of a change in tax; the reason the
matter is on the agenda is because her response to the Acting City
Manager was that the amount should stay the same and should remain
the $250 in the Contract until the Council agrees to change the
amount; that she requested that the Acting City Manager change the
amount back to $250 and he stated that the Council should give
direction on the matter, which is why she placed the matter on the
agenda; the Council should determine what happened and has wondered
why the amount is higher than the amount in the Contract; the
Council should decide whether the vehicle allowance stays the
higher amount or goes back to the Contract amount; there should be
a Contract amendment ; that she is interested in other
Councilmembers' thoughts that she does not recall seeing the legal
opinion; in 2001, the memo to the City Attorney from Linda Tripoli
states ""You have asked this office for a legal opinion relative to
an issue that has arisen with regard to the car allowance;' the
opinion is dated April 10, 2001; that she understands that the
change in amount did not go into effect until October, 2003; that
she does not recall seeing the opinion in 2001 or 2003; when she
asked in 2004, she was informed that there were no changes that
she is sure the response meant there was no change in the net
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,17,"amount of the vehicle allowance, but there had been a change in the
gross amount; noted the Human Resources Director was present if
anyone has questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that when a salary is provided in a
Contract, Council does not have someone go back later and adjust
the salary so that the net after taxes is the amount stated in the
Contract; that he views the vehicle allowance in the same fashion;
upholding the Contract and putting the amount back to $250 is
simple.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the $250 was net when the
Contract was enacted and something happened, such as a change in
the IRS code, to make the amount no longer net.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount in the Contract is $250; there was
a change in the tax code; the amount became taxable; the benefit in
the Contract was not stated as a net amount ; it is a question of
fact, not laws; the question [of increasing the amount) should have
been addressed to the Council, not an outside attorney.
The Human Resources Director stated that she does not know the tax
Code or if any changes were made to the tax Code; the benefit was
non-taxable when first provided and then became taxable, which is
why the legal opinion was given to the City Attorney; the opinion
was sent to the Finance Director who continued to provide the
benefit as a tax-free benefit for the next year to year and a half;
after said time, it was discovered that the benefit should be
taxable and put into the payroll system as a taxable benefit; the
additional memo came forward to state that if the vehicle allowance
is going to be a taxable benefit, the net amount needs to be $250
per month.
Councilmember deHaan stated the opinion was for the two Contracted
positions of City Attorney and City Manager; inquired how the legal
opinion would apply to the $250 allowance given to other Department
Heads; inquired whether other Department Heads were not entitled to
the adjustment since they are not under Contract.
The Human Resources Director responded that she does not know the
exact language of the Contracts for the City Manager and City
Attorney that she cannot appropriately answer the question; auto
allowance for all other employees is through the payroll system and
is a taxable benefit.
Councilmember deHaan stated there could be a major impact if the
legal opinion was exercised all the way through the system; the
amount of the car allowance would depend on the amount of money a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,18,"person makes; the more an individual makes, the higher the car
allowance would be.
The Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative ; stated
taxes are based upon income.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Manager and City Attorney
received a check for $250 with no taxes taken out before 2001
something happened, whether an IRS ruling or direction was to have
the car allowance go through payroll; the amount would be reduced
with taxes assessed; the issue then becomes a labor contract issue
of good faith; the $250 amount was negotiated on a good faith
basis; a staff member, such as the Finance Director or Human
Resources Director, with Linda Tripoli's letter from April, 2001,
opined that the amount would have to be increased in order to
remain whole at $250; in the highest tax rate, mathematically the
cost would be roughly $80 on the federal side and 11-12% on the
State side, which comes out to roughly $370; that he does not see
the problem.
Mayor Johnson stated that in her opinion, the problem is that the
matter should have come to the Council; when the Council approves a
Contract that states the person receives $250 per month, the amount
is $250 per month; if there is a subsequent tax change or ruling
that makes the amount taxable, the matter should come to Council to
ask if the amount should be $250 or increased now that taxes have
to be paid on the amount; the matter is not really a legal issue,
rather it is a matter of determining whether the Council wants to
change the amount now that there is a tax consequence.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council's intent was always to keep
the amount at $250; that he cannot imagine that the Council wanted
the amount lowered in 2001; that he can only imagine that the memo
issued in 2001 and circulated to the City Council was consistent
with what the Council wanted.
Mayor Johnson stated the clearest way to know what the Council
intended would be to ask the Council: Council sets amounts for
salaries, vehicle allowances for other people, and all kinds of
things, which are always gross, not net; many benefits provided
have tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is a question of process, not
amount ; the process should be that if there is a change that incurs
a higher dollar outlay than what was done before or if there is a
question of intent, the matter, under Contract or Memorandum Of
Understanding (MOU) should come to the Council; the issue is not
hugely complicated; that [bring the matter to Council] should be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,19,"to Council, but Finance never implemented the change; that she
questions whether the memo even went to Finance in 2001.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the policy that he is looking for is
that if there is a dollar figure in a contract, that the matter
should return as a Contract or MOU amendment.
Mayor Johnson stated sending a copy of a memo to the Council is not
a way of notifying the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question is not notification;
the question is approval; there is an easy fix: going forward, all
changes will come to Council for a vote.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with the suggestion; stated policy
should be set going forward; the Contract for the new City Manager
states that the amount is a fixed amount a new Contract is being
negotiated with the City Attorney and the matter can be clarified;
inquired what will be done in the interim in the next five months;
stated putting the matter in the open to understand how the City
reached the current status is good; safeguards can be put in place.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council voted to make the legal opinion a
public document and should call the next agenda item to address the
policy.
( 05-365) - Discussion and recommendations regarding City Manager and
City Attorney contract provisions pertaining to vehicle allowance
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his previous comments [ under the
previous agenda item, paragraph no. 05-364] hold.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred.
Councilmember Daysog that he does not have a problem with the
direction to have issues come back to the City Council; however,
when he received the legal opinion in 2001, he felt it was
consistent going forward, Council's request for everything to come
before Council is acceptable.
Councilmember deHaan stated actions should be done equitably among
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,20,"the rest of the people who receive automobile allowances and i
adjustments should have been made accordingly after the opinion.
Councilmember Daysog stated the car allowance for others is taxable
and done through payroll.
Mayor Johnson stated the amount is a gross amount; if the car
allowance for other employees is $250, like the City Manager and
City Attorney, the amount is taxable and other employees receive
$160.
Councilmember deHaan stated a select two were isolated to receive
the adjustment, rather than reviewing how the law affects other
employees.
Mayor Johnson stated changes in the Contract should be done through
a vote of the Council; sending a carbon copy to the Council is not
a vote of the Council the Council can only act by voting and
cannot act by non-response or consent by silence; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese's comments that it is a process question;
the process that was used was not appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a problem with stating that
something that happened in 2001 was inappropriate; any
Councilmember could have objected when the memo was received; no
one objected; things are being done differently in the new era.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council should have clear expectations of
how to handle Contract amendments.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council is indicating how the matter
will be handled in the future.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council has to vote to change a Contract.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated that extra benefits always have to be
declared for tax purposes Council seems to be putting the benefit
on payroll and covering the tax burden, which seems awkward.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to undo the past
practice [of covering the tax burden]; Council wants to have the
amount set as the amount the employee receives regardless of the
tax consequences.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision has not been made [ about
setting the vehicle allowance amount] ; that he was only requesting
that changes require a vote of the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,21,"Mayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to set the
[gross ] amount at $250; the matter can be addressed when the new
Contract with the City Attorney is negotiated; inquired the
clearest way to make a record of the fact that any changes to
Contracts have to be brought to the Council for a vote; inquired
whether the action should be a resolution.
The Acting City Manager responded staff could bring the matter back
to Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would return as a
resolution, to which the Acting City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council would address the [vehicle
allowance] amounts later.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted the item brought back would be a policy.
(05-366) Proposal for City Council Oversight on Expenditures from
Outside Counsel Appropriations.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter was on the Closed Session Agenda at
the last meeting; the matter was continued to tonight because the
preference was to address the matter in open session.
The City Attorney stated the proposal has limitations on spending,
settlement authority, additional reporting requirements and
limitations on the hiring of outside counsel through an RFP
process, creating four outside counsel panels.
Mayor Johnson stated that her intent is not to limit the amount of
money the City spends on outside counsel; costs cannot be known
ahead of time; the amount is not her concern; her concern is the
hiring of outside counsel approving the hiring of outside counsel
can be brought to the Council without a dollar limit; there is
concern about litigation strategies and not setting dollar
parameters because the other side can be tipped off about how
committed the City is to the litigation; that she does not
understand why the matter cannot be brought to the Council stating
the attorney to be hired for the particular case; the Council
approval could have no dollar information included; the names of
counsel and how much is paid per month is in the bills for
ratification; who represents the City is not a secret; the amount
and budget need to be kept confidential the Council has indicated
the City Attorney should be given authority to cover exigent
circumstances; the Council does not want a special meeting every
time the City is sued; inquired whether there would be a problem
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,22,"with setting an amount to cover the interim period and bringing the
authority to hire outside counsel to the City Council, without
limitation on dollar amounts.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should not be a special meeting for
$3,000 if the City Attorney needs to hire a transactional attorney
or if there is a tax question that comes up through the Finance
Department.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that if a dollar amount were not set, the
Council would be involved in a $3,000 decision to hire a tax
attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated Council could discuss a dollar limit; if the
Council had known about hiring Linda Tripoli to give an opinion on
vehicle allowance, Council might have paid more attention to the
issue; the Council should know who is working for the City, what
people are being hired to do and why; that she does not have
problem with a limit if the issue is minor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that, if the Council wants to know who is
being hired, the question comes down to timing; inquired how
quickly the Council should be informed after legal counsel is
hired; stated there is a proposal for quarterly financial reports
on the cost of outside counsel, including who the outside counsel
is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson stated in a lot of cases the Council could give
approval before outside counsel is hired; a lot of the hiring does
not need to be immediate; regular Council meetings are twice a
month; the City Attorney can hire someone and bring the matter to
Council for approval at the next meeting in cases when there is not
time; the Council does not want to have special meetings all the
time; that she does not like the system that is in place now; the
Charter states that the Council consents to the hiring of outside
counsel; Council is currently consenting to hiring over $800,000
worth of outside counsel through a line item budget allocation; the
Council needs to exercise more oversight Council can discuss the
level of consent that should be set; it is a change from what has
been done the past 16 years; the Council needs to exercise more
oversight than in the past.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated that she is
unclear of how the Mayor proposes to do so; the City Attorney
provided a proposal inquired whether the proposal could be
reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,23,"Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what the typical lead-time is from
the time the City Attorney knows outside counsel is needed to the
time outside counsel is hired.
The City Attorney responded usually the same day the City receives
a lawsuit; for example, in a recent lawsuit, the City had 30 days
to answer but in the interim the City had a motion for preliminary
injunction; within 24 hours of receiving the notice, the Council
would receive a paragraph describing the lawsuit received: the
immediate notification to the Council would include a description
as to what the City Attorney intends to do; a component would be
the discretion would be limited through the [counsel] panels, so
the Council would know who the City Attorney's office would be
selecting; the panels would be reviewed annually; the reason for
the immediacy is due to the requirement to respond immediately;
there is a balance because when litigation is received, by the next
meeting, the Council could indicate that it does not approve of
what is being done and how it is being done; the practical reality
is that within the first two weeks, significant initial work would
be done, which is why the proposal might not be the perfect
solution; a lot of knowledge will be given to the Council; there
could be additional oversight and opportunities for change after
seeing how the proposal works.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether $35,000 would cover two
weeks.
The City Attorney responded $35,000 was picked as the average cost
of litigation; the City Attorney's office actually totaled up costs
and $35,000 was the average cost; 50% of the cases are more than
$35,000 and 50% are less; the Council will know about the matter
within 24 hours, get a report and budget within 30 days, and have
the opportunity to schedule the matter for closed session; anything
which is significant, such as a bigger case, will automatically go
to Council for approval in a closed session; Council will know
[about lawsuits] within 24 hours and always have the opportunity to
request the matter be placed on the agenda; the City Attorney's
discretion in the selection of outside counsel will be from the
competitively selected panels of attorneys.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Charter states : ""The Council, or
any board with the consent of the Council, may empower the City
Attorney, at his request to employ special legal counsel;"" what is
being discussed is how the Council empowers the City Attorney to
make choices; a practical approach is to empower a certain dollar
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,24,"amount to get the ball rolling since Council meets every two weeks ;
the empowerment lasts only until the next Council meeting and the
matter is discussed if the amount would be higher, which is why he
was asking about the $35,000; using said amount is acceptable if
the amount can carry the day; the Council has to meet its Charter
obligation to empower the City Attorney based on the threshold if
there is a much larger case.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with said
suggestion; $35,000 [could be spent until the next Council
meeting; at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote to
hire the outside counsel inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
was making said suggestion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated to use the language in the Charter,
it empowers the City Attorney to employ outside counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City Attorney has $35,000
to spend; for example, a lawsuit comes in, the City Attorney can
spend $35,000, notifies the Council by e-mail, etc. and at the next
Council meeting, the Council gets a status report.
Mayor Johnson stated the hiring of the attorney that the City
Attorney is suggesting would be brought to Council at its next
meeting.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City Attorney could not do so when
the City is sued.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City could always change attorneys;
that she assumes the Council would approve the attorney that the
City Attorney suggests.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether said suggestion means that the
attorney has not started work yet.
Mayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated the City Attorney
can spend $35,000 until the next Council meeting, when the hiring
of outside counsel comes to the Council for approval.
Councilmember deHaan noted said suggestion differs from the City
Attorney's proposal in the staff report stated if the reporting
segment is actively working, Council can monitor and get in the
middle of things right off the bat if something goes astray; that
he does not have enough questions to make drastic changes; the City
Attorney can be given $35,000, or the amount can be dropped down to
$20,000, to get started; Councilmembers will receive a report the
threshold can be changed if two or three go astray.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,25,"Mayor Johnson stated said suggestion is greater micromanagement.
Council would have to keep up to date on all litigation matters
the City Attorney is responsible for management once outside
counsel is hired; Council cannot be responsible for monitoring
litigation and bringing the matter to the Council if
a
Councilmember does not like something; the Charter states the
Council is supposed to approve the hiring of outside counsel;
Council needs to make the approval; then, the City Attorney would
handle the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification of how the process would
work and an example be provided.
Mayor Johnson stated the main responsibility of the Council is the
Charter requirement to consent to hiring [of outside counsel] ; read
Charter section; stated the issue is how the Council consents to
the employment of special legal counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is how the Council empowers the
City Attorney the control is telling the City Attorney to go
forward with hiring outside; the tier is the City Attorney can hire
outside counsel for up to $35,000; $35,000 would take care of a
minor matter or accommodate [Council meetings) every two weeks ;
once the [$35,000] threshold is met , then the empowerment has to
come back to the City Council for a vote.
The City Attorney stated that if the additional estimate is in
excess [of $35,000] the matter would always go to Council under
the proposal; anything $35,000 or less will go to Council, if the
Council desires; anything estimated to be $35,000 or more for the
total litigation cost will automatically go to Council for
approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be done in the interim period for
larger cases, to which the City Attorney responded the matter would
be placed on the agenda as soon as possible.
Mayor Johnson inquired what if immediate action was needed.
The City Attorney responded the system is two tiered; stated the
City Attorney would be authorized to spend up to $35,000 without
prior Council approval ; for matters estimated to cost less than
[$35,000] the City Attorney hires outside counsel through the RFQ
process.
Mayor Johnson stated the City Attorney's statement differs from
what the Council is saying; the City Attorney is stating that she
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
25
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,26,"can spend $35,000 without Council approval inquired whether the
City Attorney would bring the matter to the City Council if the
total estimate of the litigation expense is more than $35,000.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a large case
would have to go to Council; the proposal has a number of
additional restrictions for a smaller case, such as a sidewalk trip
and fall i that she could only pick from a pre-qualified panel; if
there is a slip and fall with a cost estimate of $15,000, the City
Attorney would review the matter and provide the Council notice,
financial reports, and cost estimates; outside counsel would be
selected from the panel.
Mayor Johnson stated there are small cases that should be handled
in house; the City has five attorneys and should not farm out
a
$15,000 trip and fall case; insurance adjustors handle said cases
in the private sector; the City should not use outside counsel for
little cases that should be handled in house; the City has five
staff attorneys and spends a lot of money on outside counsel; the
staffing level should be reviewed if every $15,000 trip and fall is
farmed out.
The City Attorney stated the proposal is to deal with one issue;
there is a process in place for reviewing performance and
management goals for the utilization of outside counsel going
forward so that the Council establishes performance standards and
expectations of the City Attorney's office; that she hears the
Council; that the matter is a budget issue; the City Attorney's
office will do more with less, try to do more litigation in house
and work with the Council to establish the balance that the Council
wants between five attorneys.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to address the balance
and how it would be established; further stated that she would
prefer $25,000 [as the threshold].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $35,000 is for each matter.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that [$35,000]
is what the City Attorney is proposing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a period of time.
The City Attorney responded there are lots of time periods: notice
within 24 hours, budget within 35 days, and quarterly financial
reports.
Councilmember Matarrese stated for practical terms and Charter
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
26
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,27,"interpretation, the special legal counsel is per matter, which is
reasonable; someone can get started on a case; legal matters go by
case; the City Attorney would not be hiring one person to do
multiple cases.
The City Attorney stated it is per matter or item, not per issue,
subject, attorney, etc.
Mayor Johnson stated reports must not just include litigation; the
report the City Attorney provided on outside counsel only included
litigation and not other non-litigation issues that outside counsel
handle for the City.
Councilmember deHaan inquired about the number of cases that hit
the $35,000 threshold per year, possibly ten to twelve.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated that she
estimates there are about 20 active litigation cases currently.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 20 cases would reach the
$35,000 threshold, to which the City Attorney responded less than
that [20 cases].
Councilmember deHaan stated no more than eight to ten cases will
hit the $35,000 threshold over a year period of time the vast
majority are in the $3,000 to $4,000 bracket; inquired whether the
numbers [that will reach $35,000] are low.
The City Attorney responded that in trying to get some rational
basis to come up with a number, $35,000 is the exact median of the
average cost of outside counsel, so half of the cases are below and
half are above.
Councilmember deHaan disagreed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council received the report that
shows the actual amount spent on different litigation cases.
The City Attorney responded the report was provided last week.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report provided can be fine-tuned
and should work fine; that he does not see the number [of cases
$35,000 or over] being that great; the Council is allowing 70% of
the City Attorney's activity below the threshold; noted that he
used the data the City Attorney provided.
The City Attorney stated [$35,000] was found to be the median
number ; one reason for the reporting to Council is that changes can
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
27
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,28,"be made if desired.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that prior to today, the City Attorney's
office had a budget that the Council approved by a line item; the
City Attorney had utter discretion to spend the money any way she
saw fit; the Council is trying to be more cognizant of its Charter
responsibilities to provide oversight of spending said money
having gone from over $500,000 of discretionary spending to the
limit of $35,000 is a more than a prudent place to begin; the
amount is not set in stone; nothing prevents the Council from
putting a policy in place, seeing how it works and making changes
if needed; unless there are more specific recommendations the
policy is a good place to get started because it provides what the
Council is trying to move towards.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with it; the
Council still has the oversight; future changes could be made.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether approval should be via a resolution.
The City Attorney stated Council should adopt via motion, so it is
a formal Council action in terms of direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any changes need to be made.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a way to put the
proposal in terms of the Charter responsibility, which is not City
Council oversight of outside legal counsel expense, but is City
Council rules of empowering the City Attorney to engage outside
counsel.
The City Attorney responded the motion could be that this is the
rule of empowering the City Attorney under [Charter Section] 8-5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether this is a policy.
The City Attorney responded it is a rule; it is a direction.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the action could not be done by
resolution.
The City Attorney responded a resolution could be brought back.
Mayor Johnson stated a resolution would be clearer; the issue of
Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) also needs to be brought back to
the Council; the Council needs to discuss approving counsel for
AP&T and should consider delegating authority to the Public
Utilities Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
28
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,29,"The City Attorney stated said matter could be included in the
resolution.
Mayor Johnson and Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should
discuss the matter first.
Mayor Johnson suggested the resolution discussed tonight be brought
back and a separate discussion be held on delegating AP&T's legal
counsel.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired as to the difference between acting by
resolution and by motion.
Mayor Johnson stated resolutions are easier for City staff to
track.
The City Clerk noted resolutions are permanent records of the City
Council.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposal includes quarterly
reporting requirements; that he would prefer monthly reporting.
Mayor Johnson stated that monthly reporting was acceptable to her,
including the current budget on the status of the overall
litigation contingency budget for not only Risk Management, but
also AP&T.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Council needs all of the numbers for
all of the different entities that are part of legal budget the
Council appropriated.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City Attorney's office has always
delivered; the challenge is there is a desire to have more
involvement in oversight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred; stated that the action is not due to
a deficiency in the City Attorney's office, rather it is the
Council following what the Charter sets out as its role and
bringing practices in line.
Mayor Johnson concurred; inquired whether the matter could return
at the next Council meeting.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
29
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,30,"(05-367) -
Susan Potter, Alameda, requested guidance in procuring a
permit for a mobile vendor to do business in the City; stated many
companies do business without a permit.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the request was for a mobile
business at the dog park, to which Ms. Potter responded in the
affirmative.
The Acting City Manager stated the proposal is to utilize a space
at the dog park and other parks; the Recreation and Park Commission
is working on a comprehensive policy and did not want to address
the request as part of the policy; the section of the Municipal
Code dealing with rolling stores could be amended; if the Council
desires, staff could work with the Planning Board to draft an
ordinance making amendments to address the issue.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Council has to direct that the
matter be referred to the Planning Board; noted issues are unknown,
for example merchants might oppose changes.
The Acting City Manager suggested the Planning Board consider the
matter.
Mayor Johnson concurred with the suggestion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the issue of how long a business could
remain on pubic property would need to be addressed.
The Acting City Manager stated rolling stores can only use the
public right-of-way, not standing locations.
Councilmember deHaan noted Oakland allows rolling vendors on
private property.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Planning Board should review the
matter.
Ms. Potter noted nothing is being done about the rolling vendors
that are currently operating in the City without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated the City might need to start doing
enforcement.
(05-368) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed speeding vehicles.
(05-369) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated non-food services, such as
bicycle repair, should be considered when addressing mobile
businesses; noted market factors, such as demand, would not support
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
30
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,31,"the establishment of seventeen movie theaters in town.
(05-370) David Kirwin, Alameda, expressed concern about the
megaplex theatre and parking structure project and funding;
questioned whether there would be a $1,000 parcel tax; stated
parking lots adjacent to businesses are sufficient; there is a need
for increased public awareness regarding the project.
Mayor Johnson responded there is not a parcel tax; requested staff
to inform Mr. Kirwin where he should go for information.
The Acting City Manager stated Mr. Kirwin, and others, could meet
with staff in the City Manager's Office or Development Services
Department.
Mayor Johnson stated information could also be mailed or e-mailed,
if preferred.
(05-371) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, stated
people opposed to the [theater and parking structure) project have
been providing misinformation; stated PSBA would have opposed the
project if a $1,000 parcel tax were involved; noted the Downtown
Vision plan from May, 2000 indicated that informal talks about a
mutli-screen - theater were underway
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-372) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Bayport
site; the transit shelter on Tinker Avenue is less than adequate;
the size of the sidewalks at Bayport are extremely narrow, do not
match other sidewalks in Alameda, and are not pedestrian friendly;
said matters should be considered when other developments are
built.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:17 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
31
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,32,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(05-339) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney
(05-340) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case: Miraglia Enterprises V. City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employee
Evaluation, the Council discussed the performance of the City
Attorney; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave
instructions to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-07-19,33,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 19, 2005- -6:55 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05-341/05-035CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,
Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.
Alameda Belt Line.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission
obtained briefing from the City Attorney/Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
July 19, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-07-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - AUGUST 2, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-375) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to
consider an Appeal of the Planning Board approval of Parking Garage
Use Permit [05-389] and Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the
Planning Board approval of Cineplex design [05-390] would be
continued to August 16, 2005.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-376) Mayor Johnson welcomed the new City Manager.
(05-377) Presentation to the Fourth of July Committee recognizing
their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July Parade.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to the Fourth of
July Committee members.
Barbara Price, Committee Chair, thanked the Council for recognizing
the Committee and construction crews; stated that $20,000 was
raised; $10,000 would go to school music programs.
Mayor Johnson thanked Bill Frink, Harris and Associates, for the
extraordinary effort made to get Park and Webster Streets ready for
the parade stated that people thought the parade was wonderful.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many participants were in the
parade.
Ms. Price responded that there were 3,000 participants, 182
entries, 17 bands and 13 equestrian units.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Committee for their time and
efforts.
(
(05-378) Proclamation declaring Brad Kruck to be Alameda's 2004
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year in
the three or fewer rental unit category.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,2,"Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Brad Kruck.
(05-379) - Proclamation declaring Irene Hanson to be Alameda's 2004
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Property Owner of the Year in
the four or more rental unit category.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Irene Hanson.
(05-380) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Project Manager for ensuring
that the project was on schedule and for managing the contingency
fund; requested that the Project Manager thank the contractors.
The Project Manager stated that a second change order, which is a
credit back to the Contract, would be brought to the Council next
month.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hoped that future reports would
be as upbeat as the report presented tonight.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Mayor to send a letter to the United States Postal Service [05-383]
and Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to Employ
Special Legal Counsel 105-386] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( 5-381) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting held on June 21, 2005; and the
Special, Special Joint City Council and CIC, and Regular City
Council meetings held on July 19, 2005. Approved.
( *05-382) - Ratified bills in the amount of $4,913,721.97.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,3,"(05-383) - Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send a letter to
the United States Postal Service regarding the City's interest to
relocate the distribution function of the Alameda Post Office from
Shoreline Drive to another site in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City Manager would revise the draft
letter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is in favor of relocating
the distribution center; that there is no reason for a warehouse
and parking lot to enjoy one of the best views of the entire East
Bay; stated that the City should retain some sway over what would
be placed at the site; there is no need for another carwash or
retail-type enterprise that would not take advantage of the
location; efforts should be made to retain a retail front within
the South Shore Center for mail transactions.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he has a concern with the
possibility that the Post Office would be relocated at Alameda
Point.
Mayor Johnson stated that the intent was to have the retail portion
of the Post Office remain at the South Shore Center and have the
sorting portion of the facility move to a more appropriate
location.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the relocation of the distribution
center is a great opportunity for the City.
Mayor Johnson stated the relocation is not certain; the matter has
been discussed for years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
( * 05-384) Recommendation to adopt specifications for Vehicle Tow
Contract for abandoned vehicles for the Police Department Accepted.
(*05-385) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Contract with
Signet Testing Labs, Inc., modifying the scope of work and
increasing the Contract price in the amount of $54,000 for the New
Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01. Accepted.
(05-386) - Adoption of Resolution Empowering the City Attorney to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,4,"Employ Special Legal Counsel. Not adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed resolution was a
very good start in addressing how the Council would implement its
authority per Section 8-5 of the Charter and to be clear on how the
Council chooses to empower the City Attorney to make decisions at a
lower expenditure level and moving upi the Charter obligations are
met with the concepts in the proposed resolution; the resolution
should be written in said terms; the elements, e.g. threshold, are
included; the direction is in terms of implementation of a Section
of the Charter; reporting details do not have relevance to the
Charter, are more of an expectation and work product rather than an
implementation of the Charter, and should be removed from the
resolution; that he does not recall discussing how the Council
would incorporate Alameda Power & Telecom (AP&T). the Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority (ARRA)
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that there would be a
separate discussion on AP&T; that she was not sure whether there
would be a separate discussion on the ARRA and CIC.
Councilmember Matarrese noted that the discussion would be about
delegating authority to the Public Utilities Board (PUB ) ; the
resolution should be presented in terms of clarifying and providing
the procedure for implementing the Charter further stated that the
proposed resolution should be written as the Council's path on how
it empowers the City Attorney to engage outside counsel.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the proposed resolution starts
with operative clauses; pre-ambulatory clauses are needed to
provide context.
Mayor Johnson stated the language should restate the Charter
provision and state that pursuant to the Charter, the Council has
the authority and is making a delegation of its Charter authority
under the particular circumstances in the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the language should state that
the resolution would also apply to the CIC and ARRA.
Mayor Johnson stated that the CIC and ARRA should be separate
because the authority regarding outside counsel for the CIC and
ARRA are under by-laws, not the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a separate action would be needed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore clarified that the intent is to have the same
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,5,"apply to ARRA and the CIC.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurred with Councilmember
Matarresei some language should not be included in the resolution;
the purpose of the resolution is to delegate authority under the
Charter; procedural issues should be in a separate document and
should be removed [from the resolution] that she was not clear on
the $35,000 threshold; the resolution states that the City Attorney
has the authority to spend $35,000 on any chase and does not come
to the Council until $35,000 is spent, which was not what Council
intended.
Councilmember deHaan stated the intent was that the City Attorney
would advise the Council of the approximate cost of the case; if
the case would reach the $35,000 threshold, it would definitely
have to come to the Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the resolution is not to limit
spending, rather it defines when the Council's Charter authority is
delegated small consultations that amount to a couple thousand
dollars should not come to the Council and authority is delegated;
$35,000 was an order of magnitude when there would be a significant
impact on the City's liability or a significant amount of money
would be spent and the Council's authority would not be delegated.
Mayor Johnson stated that she recalled that if the anticipated
legal costs would be more than $35,000, than the matter would come
to Council, however the City Attorney could spend money on the
interim until the matter comes to the Council.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she recalled that the $35,000
threshold had a couple of caveats; the matter would come to Council
if there were policy questions or if there were potentially large
ramifications no matter how much or small of an amount would be
spent if there were a matter that Councilmembers wanted to ask
questions about, Councilmembers have the option to have the matter
brought to Council.
Councilmember Matarrese stated said directions are work product and
performance issues, not a question of delegating authority the
Council is trying to identify a point when the Council delegates
authority to the City Attorney and when Council retains authority;
something of extreme importance might cost less than $35,000 and
the City Council might want to retain its authority on the
engagement of outside counsel; the question is of delegation, not
limits on spending; the intent is to define the delegation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she interpreted that the intent of the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,6,"proposed resolution was that the City Attorney could spend $35,000
and then, once the cost goes beyond $35,000, the matter would come
to the Council for additional authority.
The City Attorney stated that the fourth bullet point in the
resolution includes limitations on spending; that she does not have
the authority to spend $35,000 on a $200,000 case and then come to
Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that the fourth bullet point addresses
reporting; the first bullet point states that the City Attorney is
authorized by the Council to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
the appropriated budget without prior Council approval; the
statements implies that the Councils is giving the City Attorney
authority to spend $35,000 on any matter before coming to Council ;
the fourth bullet point is a reporting requirement the focus
should be on the issue of when the Council is delegating its
Charter authority to the City Attorney, not reporting requirements
the language might just need clarification; inquired whether she
was interpreting the first bullet point correctly.
The City Attorney responded that the first bullet point is in
context of the fourth bullet point, which means that she has
authorization to spend $35,000 per matter without prior Council
approval, however, she must come to Council with the litigation
budget for anything estimated to exceed $35,000 within 35 days.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney would come to
Council for approval of hiring outside counsel or simply to report
to the Council.
The City Attorney responded that she would bring the issue to the
Council similar to the Closed Session tonight.
Mayor Johnson stated the Closed Session tonight was a report the
purpose of the resolution is to clarify when the Council would
delegate its authority to the City Attorney to hire outside
counsel.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Council would not delegate
its authority to hire outside counsel if any of the following
apply: 1) if the estimated defense costs were over $35,000; 2) if a
policy question were involved; 3) if there were significant
ramifications to the City; and 4) if requested by the Council; the
Council does not delegate its authority to hire outside counsel if
any of the four apply; the $35,000 threshold allows the City
Attorney to engage outside counsel to get the ball rolling so that
the City would not incur increased liability if there was an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,7,"immediate need and the Council did not meet for two weeks the
reporting [approval of hiring outside counsel] would occur at the
next regular City Council meeting; a special meeting could be
called if the matter was extremely urgent.
Mayor Johnson stated the language in the resolution should be
clarified to reflect Councilmember Matarrese's comments.
The City Attorney stated that she would have to retain outside
counsel in order to start litigation.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council understands said issue, which is
the reason for the $35,000.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred; stated the $35,000 threshold
allows the City Attorney to do so [retain outside counsel]. ;
inquired whether $35,000 was a reasonable amount to get the ball
rolling on a big case.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he is interpreting the exercise of
the City Attorney's responsibilities within the $35,000 threshold
in two ways: 1) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to
exercise professional responsibility in evaluating the cost ahead
of time if said evaluation deems that the matter would be less
than $35,000, the City Attorney has the authority to move forward;
2) the Council is trusting the City Attorney to use her
professional background and experience to make the decision to
bring the matter to the Council when the cost would be more than
$35,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is an accountability issue; Council
would have questions if a case were estimated to cost $5,000 and it
ended up costing $80,000; there is a check and a balance; the
reporting requirements, limitations on hiring outside counsel, and
the Public Utilities Board delegation should be addressed separate;
the resolution should not read: ""limitations on spending outside
counsel budget; limiting spending is not the intention the City
will have to spend whatever amount needs to be spent; the
delegation or approval of the hiring of outside counsel under
certain circumstance is what is being addressed; requested that the
matter be brought back to Council; stated the CIC, ARRA and AP&T
issues also need to be discussed later.
Councilmember Matarrese stated once the questions that were raised
are resolved with the next draft, the Council could move forward to
extrapolate the same approach to ensure the language is correct in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,8,"the ARRA and CIC by-laws then, Council could discuss whether it
wants to delegate its authority to the PUB.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether items other than an
estimate over $35,000, policy questions, significant ramifications
or Council questions should trigger that the matter comes to
Council; inquired if there were significant ramifications the
matter would come to Council regardless of whether the cost would
be $35,000.
Vie Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative; stated that she
does not care how much a matter costs, the matter should come to
Council if there would be significant ramifications.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the four points [over $35,000,
policy questions, significant ramifications or Council questions)
are the conditions under which the Council's authority is retained.
Mayor Johnson concurred; stated the language should be clear that
[under the four conditions, ] the Council retains its authority to
empower the City Attorney to hire outside counsel.
The City Attorney requested that the revised proposal be brought
back to the Council in September since she will not be at the
August 16, 2005 City Council Meeting.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 05-387) - Ordinance No. 2943, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Amending Various Sections of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations). "" Finally passed.
Ken Carvalho, Alameda, urged the Council to pass the Ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
(05-388) Ordinance No. 2944, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Declaring Boutique Theaters to be Uses Permitted by Use Permit
within the C-1 Neighborhood Commercial Zoning District of Chapter
XXX (Development Regulations) . "" Finally passed.
 ouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,9,"Counci lember deHaan noted that reducing the number of districts
still needed to be reviewed.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Gilmore
- 1.
(05-389) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board approval of Parking Garage Use Permit (UP05-0008) and Design
(DR05-0028) - ; and adoption of related resolution. Continued to
August 16, 2005.
(05-390) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board approval of Cineplex Design (DR05-0041) ; and adoption of
related resolution. Continued to August 16, 2005.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-391) Richard Scrindy, Alameda, stated that he is selling his
house in Alameda inquired why past permits have not been honored
and why criminal charges were filed against him; invited the
Council to come to his home thanked Mayor Johnson, Councilmember
Matarrese and Councilmember deHaan for trying to help.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-392) - Written communication from the League of California
Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the League's
2005 Annual Conference.
Mayor Johnson suggested that Councilmember Daysog be the City's
delegate and Vice Mayor Gilmore be the alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember Daysog
serving as the City's delegate and Vice Mayor Gilmore serving as
the alternate.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(05-393) Discussion regarding the placement of proposed federal
legislation that would amend the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to
limit casino expansion on the August 16, 2005 City Council agenda
for formal action.
Mayor Johnson stated proposed federal legislation regarding gaming
might be helpful to communities such as Alameda the matter would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,10,"be continued because there was not sufficient information provided
yet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether other legislation was being
proposed.
Mayor Johnson responded that she thought there was proposed
legislation from Senators Feinstein and McCain; stated that all
information would be presented when the matter returns to Council.
(05-394 - ) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed the new City Manager;
stated that he was looking forward to working with the new City
Manager to get a lot done.
Councilmember Daysog welcomed the new City Manager.
Councilmember deHaan welcomed the new City Manager ; noted that
tonight's adjournment time is not the norm.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:17 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
10
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 2, 2005- - -5:30 P.M.
( (05-373) - ) A Special Meeting was called to allow the Council to
attend an electric bus demonstration.
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY - - - AUGUST 2, 2005
-
-
7:05
P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:07 p.m.
Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers/Commissioners/Authority/Board
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent : None
(05-374CC/05-036CIC)
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case Operation Dignity, Inc. V. City of
Alameda, Community Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and
Development Authority and Housing Authority
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commissioners/
Authority/Board Members obtained briefing and gave direction to the
City Attorney/Legal Counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Community Improvement Commission,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -AUGUST 2, 2005- -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(05-037) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) meeting of June 21, 2005; the Special
Joint CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority meeting of
June 28, 2005; and the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
of July 19, 2005. Approved.
Vice Chair Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Commissioner Matarrese abstained from
voting on the June 28, 2005 minutes. . ]
AGENDA ITEM
(
05-038) Recommendation to approve the amended Contract with
Architectural Resources Group, Inc. by increasing the Contract
amount an additional $307,414 to provide additional pre-planning
and construction administration services for the rehabilitation of
the Alameda Theater.
The Development Services Director gave a brief report.
Commissioner deHaan stated that the original November 2003 Contract
was for $79,000 and has increased to close to $1 million; inquired
whether the Commission was made aware that additional phases would
be added.
The Development Services Director responded that the November 2003
Contract was for the beginning phase; the Commission should have
been advised that other phases would be added.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be a bid package
within the next month or two, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be construction
administration throughout the project.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,14,"The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated that a construction management contract would be presented
at the August 16 CIC Meeting.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the construction manager would
be a contractor.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the construction manager would also manage the parking
garage project.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what the (construction management)
Contract would cost, to which the Development Services Director
responded approximately $1 million.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there would be additional
oversight, to which the Development Services Director responded not
unless a problem arose with the historic property.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there was a budget for
oversight of architecture and engineering for the parking
structure, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Morgan, Citizens for a Megaplex Free Alameda, urged that the
Commission continue the matter until after a decision has been
rendered on the project.
Commissioner Daysog inquired what services Architectural Resources
Group, Inc. (ARG) was providing and why another layer of
consultants was providing advice.
The Development Services Director responded that construction
projects involving the rehabilitation of a historic structure
involve changes and modifications architects are needed to draft
up solutions to gray areas.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether said level of services was
always contemplated, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he has a sense of sticker shock
with the increased amount of the Contract; that he understands that
there is a level of complexity in dealing with a historic
structure.
The Development Services Director stated that the construction
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-02,15,"administration cost is well within industry standards.
Commissioner Daysog stated that the project should move forward;
expert advice is needed because of the project's historic nature.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether ARG would provide services
for the theatre and not the parking structure, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that expert restoration and
preservation advice is needed when restoring and rehabilitating an
old building.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Contract would have any
impact on the Cineplex, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the negative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether there were extraordinary
circumstances involving the Heating, Ventilation and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) system.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the original HVAC system exceeded noise levels.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether construction administration
would be initiated when bids are in hand to which the Development
Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried unanimous
voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary,
Community Improvement Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
August 2, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:55 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-396) - Proclamation recognizing John Knowles for his
contribution to the revitalization of the Park Street Business
District.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to John Knowles.
Mr. Knowles thanked the Council for the proclamation.
(05-397 - ) Proclamation designating August 26th as Women's Equality
Day in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Dorie
Behrstock, Vice President of Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women.
Ms. Behrstock introduced Isle City of Alameda Business and
Professional Women members Margaret Seaman and Joanne Ainsworth
thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the Council and
public to a reception on August 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. at the Harbor
Bay Community Center.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Creating Special
Newsrack Districts [paragraph no. 05-404] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,2,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number) ]
(*05-398) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners meeting and the
Regular City Council meeting held on August 2, 2005. Approved.
(*05-399) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,127,711.09.
(*05-400) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Investment Report for
period ending June 30, 2005. Accepted.
( *05-401) - Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for
the period ending June 30, 2005, for sales transactions in the
First Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.
(*05-402) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
second amendment to Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates,
extending the term, scope of work and price for services associated
with the Webster Street Renaissance Project. Accepted.
(*05-403) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Ameresco
Keller Canyon, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Accepted.
(05-404) Resolution No. 13882, ""Creating Special Newsrack
Districts in Both the Park Street and West Alameda Business
Districts as Authorized in the Alameda Municipal Code Section 22-7,
Newspaper and Periodical Vending Machines of Article 1 (Streets)
,
Chapter XXII (Streets and Sidewalks) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the public should be aware of
the Newsrack Ditricts, which go along with the improvements on Park
and Webster Streets and increase attractiveness in the business
districts.
Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) urged adoption
of the resolution.
Sherri Steig, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) stated WABA
supports adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to recognize the
efforts of former Councilmember Karin Lucas; requested staff to
review posting signs on historic lampposts.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,3,"Mayor Johnson stated a lot of signs are attached to the poles the
signs detract from the attractiveness of the poles and should be
avoided if possible.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-405) - Resolution No. 13883, ""Requiring City Council Approval of
Any Amendment to the Employment Contracts of the City Manager or
City Attorney. Adopted.
(*05-406) Resolution No. 13884, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing Salary Range for
the Position of Senior Combination Building Inspector. Adopted.
(*05-407) Resolution No. 13885, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the positions of Information
Systems Network Analyst and Safety Officer. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-408) Public Hearing to consider Appeals of the Planning
Board's approval of a Use Permit and Design Review for the parking
garage and new Cineplex components of the proposed Alameda Theater
Project on Oak Street and Central Avenue. This site is located at
1416 Oak Street and 2305 Central Avenue (Video Maniacs site)
within the C-C-T (Community Commercial Theater Combining) District.
Applicants: City of Alameda (DSD) and Kyle Conner, Alameda
Entertainment Associates, LP . Appellants: Ani Dimusheva and Valerie
Ruma ;
(05-408A) Resolution No. 13886, ""Upholding the Planning Board of
the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review DR05-0028
and Use Permit UP05-0008 for the Proposed New Civic Center Parking
Garage. Adopted; and
(05-408B) Resolution No. 13887, ""Resolution Upholding the Planning
Board of the City of Alameda's Decision to Approve Design Review
DR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue.
Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of project) : Kathy Moehring, Alameda (not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,4,"Rudenko, Alameda (not present) ; Gina Shepard, Alameda; Margarita
Dorland, Alameda (not present) ; Alex Helperin, Alameda (not
present) ; Vicki Varghese, Alameda (not present) ; Sia Bayat,
Alameda Michael Cate, Alameda; and Pat Bail, Alameda.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,5,"Following Gina Shepard's comments, Mayor Johnson called a recess at
11:37 p.m. and reconvened the Regular City Council Meeting at 11:50
p.m.
***
When the meeting was reconvened, Councilmember Matarrese moved
approval of continuing the meeting past midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Following Frank Lopez, there being no, further speakers, Mayor
Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the cost for the Cineplex and
historic renovation is approximately $13 million dollars; the
report compares the $13 million cost against $5.9 million in
revenues; there is a negative of $7.1 million; inquired whether
interest is included in the $13 million cost.
Tim Kelly, Keyser and Marston Associates, responded in the
negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the amount would be if interest
were included.
Mr. Kelly responded tax increment should be included if interest is
included; stated the bonds are already funded; all sources of
income that pay for the City's obligations, including tax increment
used to fund the debt service on the bonds and garage income, are
not included.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was an estimate of how
long it would take for property values to raise in order to recoup
the $7.1 million.
Mr. Kelly responded the Community Improvement Commission (CIC)
already has the income to pay for the approximately $15 or $16
million in bonds which have been sold; the $7 million for the
parking garage is not paid for yet; some sources of funds would be
the theater and ground lease rent.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the sources of funds would
equal $5.9 million.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated the source of funds
would be $5.9 million in present value against a loan of $7 million
present value.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,6,"Counci lmember Daysog stated the $13 million bonds issued for the
Cineplex and historic theater would need to be paid back.
Mr. Kelly stated that the bonds have already been issued based upon
the CIC's cash flow; the income from the theater project does not
have to repay the bonds the bonds are financed by CIC's existing
cash flow.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the cash flow is tax
increment.
Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; the cash flow is the
existing tax increment the tax increment does not come out of the
General Fund and is not money that would have gone to the General
Fund; the tax increment is redevelopment money that has to be used
for certain limited purposes; redevelopment law prohibits the money
from being used for Police and Fire services.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether tax increment could be used
for public infrastructure in a redevelopment area, to which Mr.
Kelly responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether General Fund costs that are
used for public improvements in a redevelopment area could be
covered by redevelopment funds.
Mr. Kelly responded that the purpose of the redevelopment financing
is to provide economic development, stimulate growth, and remove
blight redevelopment financing is not intended for public
improvements that would have otherwise occurred; theoretically,
redevelopment funds could be used.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the argument is that redevelopment
money cannot be used for General Fund type activity with regards to
infrastructure.
Mr. Kelly stated redevelopment money is all the tax increment
captured above a certain base; redevelopment law limits the City to
use the funds for remediation of blight.
The Development Services Director stated that redevelopment law is
very clear that new improvements need to be made; funds cannot be
used for operating and maintenance costs; redevelopment law
findings that state there are no other public monies available must
be made to do an improvement, like a street.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is an argument that
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,7,"redevelopment dollars cannot be used for infrastructure
improvements that are generally covered by the General Fund Capital
Improvement Budget inquired whether redevelopment dollars could be
used under certain circumstances.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated redevelopment dollars cannot be used to pay for street
resurfacing; pass-through agreements with the County preclude the
City from using redevelopment project tax increment on certain
projects, such as Estuary Park.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what projects have been obligated
with the $47 million bond issue.
The Development Services Director responded the projects include
the new Library and matching funding for some grant money for
Webster and Park Streets; there was an existing obligation as part
of the construction of the Marina Village Project $13 million went
to capitalize the payments on the long-term obligation to repay the
infrastructure improvements made at Marina Village years ago.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $200,000 was used for
intersection remediation at Otis and Park Streets.
The Development Services Director responded that money for
intersection remediation came from regular operating tax increment
revenues, not bond money.
Councilmember Daysog stated the report states that project results
in a net cost to the CIC; that he understands Mr. Kelly's comments
regarding estimated CIC costs; the $13 million bond will be paid
from the increase in tax increment in the redevelopment area, not
the project itself; the staff analysis compares the estimated CIC
costs against the estimated CIC revenues, which results in a $7
million negative.
Mr. Kelly stated there is a cost; however, the City will own the
historic theater, the parking garage and the land underneath the
theater; the City is buying assets.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the purpose of edevelopment
is to generate value; inquired whether the City would collect
property taxes if the City owns the assets.
The Development Services Director responded one objective of
redevelopment is to create value; redevelopment also serves to
build the projects which the community needs; the existing tax
increment supports the construction of the parking structure; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,8,"parking structure creates additional business opportunities and new
value; the money is also used for projects that the public has
decided are important; the historic theater renovation is such a
case and is an eligible, legal project i the lion share of the $5. 9
million concerning Councilmember Daysog is the construction,
stabilization and restoration of the historic theater part of the
expenditure that would never be recovered is for restoring the
theater, which was considered of great concern to the community
staff never reviewed a reuse of the building that would recover the
investment the theater did not have a private sector investor all
these years because nobody in the private sector could figure out
what could go into the building to substantiate or support the
investment.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the report shows a net negative,
to which Mr. Kelly responded redevelopment law requires disclosure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated part of the reason for the negative net
present value is because the Council directed staff to preserve the
historic theater; Council felt the theater would continue to
deteriorate if the City did not move forward with preservation; the
project cost would not be so high if restoring the theater was not
so valuable and the City wanted to build a new theater and parking
garage, without the historic theater the project is running in the
red because so much money is being spent for the historic theater
infrastructure; inquired whether the historic theater is a
financial albatross.
The Development Services Director responded public entities restore
buildings because of the appreciation of the value of the asset to
the community, on which an economic value cannot be placed; a
building use that could support the project costs would result in
the building being butchered to increase density, such as public
storage; said type of use would not meet the community's
restoration and preservation goals.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the parking structure
design/build allows the design to be modified.
The Development Services Director responded that one of the goals
of using the design/build process was to ensure that the project
was built efficiently with as little public money as possible; the
design/build process allows designers and construction to come
together to yield the most efficient garage the exterior design
review is being resolved to prevent the design/build contract from
growing in response to design issues; pinning down the design up
front provides the additional guarantee that there would be no
questions about what the design/build team put together i the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,9,"objective was to have the most efficient, least expensive project,
with an eye on speed; the exterior design of the project needs to
be known before moving forward, otherwise an intolerable budget
situation could be created; design/build should reduce the number
of changes later and create a more controlled process for bidding
the project and getting the best price and product for the
community.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the first tasks was to
review alternate parking areas in 1999 during the visioning
process; inquired what were the alternate areas.
The Development Services Director responded she does not know what
the alternate parking areas were in 1999; subsequent parking
analysis identified alternative sites, including the Elks Club,
Video Maniacs and the Long's site.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not recall Video Maniacs
being one of the sites.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Video Maniacs was included as
an option in the 2000 Downtown Vision Report.
The Development Manager stated that six studies reviewed different
sites since 1972; all studies considered Video Maniacs as one of
the top sites.
Councilmember deHaan stated the 2000 parking analysis indicated
that 498 parking spaces were needed for 1,500 theater seats;
inquired whether the Development Services Director was aware of the
analysis.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the analysis was fairly speculative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the analysis indicated that a certain
number would park in the lot and some patrons would park in other
areas; Park Street as been so successful in recent years that the
200 spaces [in other areas) that were going to be used to support
the theater are being utilized now.
The Development Services Director stated the environmental
assessment included completion of a new traffic and parking
assessment to update the information and confirm that there would
be opportunities for shared parking the commercial district
setting of the project means people will have already parked
somewhere else.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,10,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the factor used for the first
study has increased.
The Development Services Director responded the new trip manual
published after parking work was completed has identical numbers on
reverse days; the factors used for Saturday are now the factors
that apply to Friday peak parking and vice versa; the Saturday
position has been improved significantly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether said information has been
provided.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
that the only manual of record published at the time the work was
completed was used for the [first study; using the new trip manual
staff decided whether changes needed to be made; the decision was
that, with the reverse [of Friday and Saturday peaks], an even
worse case situation had been analyzed [in the first study! ].
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 200 spaces would overflow
into other areas because the parking structure would not be able to
handle all parking needs.
The Development Services Director responded said case would only
occur at one or two peaks a week; 1750 seats were analyzed; the
scope of the assessment for the environmental review was a bigger
project because staff did not have the final numbers; the proposed
project is smaller.
The Development Manager stated that the assumptions in the traffic
and parking analysis were conservative, assumed 100% occupancy of
the 1750 seats and did not include cross trips the numbers in the
parking study are adequate for meeting the parking demand.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the numbers are adequate to
support the theater and the new activity on Park Street, to which
the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking would support
peak times with activities at the Masonic Temple, Kaufman
Auditorium, the Elks Lodge, and the high school.
The Development Services Director responded that staff did not
factor in that every facility in town could have an event on the
same night. the analysis is based on existing trip data at certain
times of the day.
Councilmember deHaan stated the theater is not used during peak
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,11,"hours; the theater peak time is later.
The Development Services Director stated the parking studies
included a desire for a much bigger parking structure; a 508 space
parking garage was contemplated when the Long's parking lot was
discussed; a long-term parking plan is still needed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that existing tax increment covers the
bonds that have already been issued; requested staff to address how
the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) loan would be paid back,
the developer's buying and selling options, and how much capital
the developer is investing in the project; stated that there has
been a lot of discussion regarding scaling down the theater or just
doing three screens the number one goal of the Downtown Vision
Plan was to restore the historic theater for first run movies.
The Development Services Director stated all except $3.5 million of
public investment in the project would go to the historic theater
and parking garage the developer will provide his own furniture,
fixtures, and equipment (FF&E) in the historic theater; the
developer will bring $5. 3 million in equity and bank financing; the
developer has met financing commitments outlined in the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) ; the bank financing includes an SBA
(Small Business Administration portion, which has additional
control and rigor because of the examination SBA completes; the
developer would build the Cineplex; the City will own the land
under the Cineplex and own the historic theater and land; the City
will lease the historic theater and the ground under the Cineplex
to the developer ; a $700,000 grant will pay for vertical elements,
such as the elevator, ramps, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
exiting and life safety exiting; the Cineplex entrance will be used
to meet ADA requirements; there are two methods for repaying the
$2.8 million loan in the DDA; $1. 4 million will begin to be repaid
in the seventh year after the developer's FF&E financing would be
retired; the other $1.4 million will be paid in a percentage rent,
which is 17% of the project gross above a certain threshold; DDA
provisions preclude the developer from selling or refinancing
without paying off the loans; the historic theater retail rental
income will be retained by the CIC; the developer has the option to
purchase the the historic theater and the land under the Cineplex
from the CIC after successfully operating for five years; the
developer would have to buy both the historic theater and Cineplex
land; the purchase price would be the amount that the CIC paid.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that there is a lot of concern over the
assumptions about ticket sales; the developer has to sell tickets
to meet his obligations to bankers and the CIC; the concern is that
not enough tickets will be sold and that the project will fail;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,12,"requested staff to address said assumptions.
The Development Services Director stated the assumptions are
extremely conservative; staff assumed the project would gross
approximately $2 million per year in ticket sales and another
$900,000 to $1 million in concessions, for a total of $3 million;
the financial analysis has determined that the project obligations
to the CIC would be met at the achievement of said $3 million; the
percentage rent is based on the business producing $3 million; the
assumption is that 60-65% of the Alameda market will be captured
the Bay Area is an anomaly with respect to theater-going trends;
Bay Area theater attendance is almost twice the national average ;
theaters in the area are doing twice the amount of business that
staff estimated per screen; staff also wanted to ensure that the
project has enough revenue to maintain the facilities; DDA
provisions require that the buildings need be operated in a certain
manner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the square foot rent would be
for the historic theater.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to
calculate the amount; the rent has been $2,000 per month for the
past few years.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what is the square footage of the
historic theater, to which the Development Services Director
responded that the entire building is 33,000 square feet, which
includes space that would not be used.
Mayor Johnson requested an overview of the current condition of the
historic theater and the status of the acquisition.
The Development Services Director responded the Council took action
to begin the eminent domain process late last spring; the building
estimate, based on an appraisal, was deposited with the courts; the
owner has picked up the deposit and advised the court that he would
not contest the sale and is only interested in the value; the value
will now be established through the eminent domain processi the
City will take possession of the theater on October 3 or 4; the
City has worked with the owner to gain access to the building and
begin work, such as investigation of the ground water problem in
the basement.
Mayor Johnson noted that the building has been used as a skating
rink, disco, roller rink and gymnastics auditorium.
The Development Services Director stated that the City has been
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,13,"working with the Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to assess the
building; ARG has worked with engineers and other specialists to
determine what needs to be done to bring the building up to code
and to repair, reverse and restore some of the damage that has been
done; a lot of seismic work has to be done, such as reinforcing the
concrete façade marquee area that is only held up by four redwood
posts; fire sprinklers have to be installed; the electrical and
plumbing work has to be redone the water in the basement is a
combination of a leak from a storm drain as well as ground water
intrusion.
The Development Manager stated that the lobby carpet was replaced;
the mezzanine carpet is torn; the lobby mirror, mezzanine mural,
and light fixtures have been removed; the curtain has suffered
water damage; the floor of the auditorium has been built up buffer
walls have been installed along side walls; holes were made in the
auditorium ceiling for lighting; there is significant water damage
along the alley due to a storm drain.
Councilmember deHaan stated the retail revenue would be received
from the historic theater; inquired whether retail revenue would be
received from the Cineplex.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative. stated
that the developer is building the Cineplex with his own financing
and would receive the rents from his own retail space.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the rent revenue was
significant to the developer to make the project work.
The Development Services Director responded that the funding is
part of the picture; the Cineplex retail is only 3,400 square feet.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the revenue from
the retail space counts toward the percentage rent the developer
will pay.
Councilmember deHaan stated one of the seven auditoriums in the new
Cineplex has 78 seats; the historic theater balcony accommodated
150 seats; inquired what is the concern with renovating the
balcony.
The Development Services Director responded that the DDA allows the
developer to use the balcony at a later point at his own expense if
he chooses; the spaces are not soundproof, provide 62-64 seats each
and would be used to show boutique films.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex building could
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,14,"be downsized if one of the theaters and some retail were removed
stated that he is concerned with protrusions going in all different
directions; inquired whether the footprint could be reduced.
The Development Services Director responded the buildings are
linked; eliminating a theater from the Cineplex top level would
impact the value of what remains and the project's ability to
support the additional cost of going to a second floor; some of the
value supports the construction cost.
Councilmember deHaan stated protrusions usually cost more money
removing the 79-seat theater would allow the building to be brought
back; review of other options would allow reduction of mass; that
he has concerns about design.
Kyle Conner, Project Developer, stated more screens are needed, not
less; eliminating a screen on the second level of the Cineplex
would leave only nine screens; that he would like to have more than
ten screens; that he would have a problem with reducing the number
of screens.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Conner's plan would be to go
forward with the balcony eventually, to which Mr. Conner responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the $72,000 in rent for the
historic theater equals per square foot.
Mr. Conner responded the ground floor is approximately 19,000
square feet, including retail; the cinema would be approximately
15,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog stated that movie theater square footage
comparisons are a way to gauge whether the rent is appropriate.
Mr. Conner stated debt service for construction should be
considered as rent because he has a ground lease and does not own
the property; rent would be approximately $1.30 per square foot
when considering all of the components to service the debt and rent
for the facility.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the figure would be if debt
service were not considered, to which Mr. Conner responded $0.40
per square foot.
The Development Services Director stated that the rent is based on
revenues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,15,"Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats the historic theater
had on the main floor, to which the Development Manager responded
2,000 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how many seats would be accommodated
now, to which the Development Manager responded 484 seats.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether all the space would be
utilized.
Mr. Conner responded old seats were spaced 32 inches apart; new
seats will be spaced 45 inches apart.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 484 seats would utilize
all the space.
Mr. Conner responded in the affirmative; noted old seating areas
underneath the balcony would be used for offices and concessions.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the historic theater lobby
area would be adequate for a concession stand, to which Mr. Conner
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether rent was compared with other
cities or facilities.
Mr. Kelly responded one integrated business is being run in two
buildings rent was run against total gross and was around 15%; the
calculations were run on gross, rather than per square foot; the
rent is based upon the estimated volume of business.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the industry reviews rents on
a square-foot basis.
Mr. Kelly responded typical rent would be $1.35 to $1.85 per square
foot in a suburban area; Alameda's situation is unique; the rent
was based on estimated gross sales to be fair to both sides.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there was a blended figure
for both the new Cineplex and the historic theater, to which Mr.
Kelly responded that the developer is building the Cineplex
building.
Mayor Johnson stated one of the project goals was to save the
historic theater; theaters built today are not like the historic
theater ; the developer is taking on a lot of space that would not
be taken on for a modern theater; the project would be a lot easier
if preserving the historic theater were not a goal; there are
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,16,"obstacles in determining how to go forward with the project and
save the historic theater at the same time.
Mr. Kelly stated the historic theater costs over $9 million for 484
seats; $9 million is enough money to build a 12-plex.
Mayor Johnson stated eight years ago, the Council gave direction to
staff to develop a project that would save the Alameda Theater and
have it used for first run movies.
Mr. Conner stated the percentage rent structure was designed to
help protect the downside and have everyone share in the upside ;
the City shares significantly [in the upside ] more than any other
deal; the amount is three to four times what an average percentage
rent would be in any commercial theater in a suburban setting.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the City's share of the
percentage rent in net present value terms over 20 to 30 years is
$190,000.
Mr. Kelly responded an aggressive assumption that the theater will
get 100% of the Alameda market would mean the City will have some
significant percentage rents; if the theater does very well, the
City will receive 15 to 17%, will share in that [profit] and
receive what is believed to be a fair rent.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether 15 to 17% was based on gross or net,
to which Mr. Kelly responded gross, including concessions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated everyone seems to agree that the historic
theater should be restored and preserved; the money being spent to
restore the theater could build a 12-plex; money is being put into
the historic theater because it almost becomes a public amenity; a
public amenity is not expected to make a return; the new Library is
not expected to make a return.
Councilmember Daysog noted residents voted for the new Library.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the community has clearly expressed that
restoration and preservation of the historic theater is valuable:
the high cost of rehabilitating the theater makes a financially
neutral project difficult; opinions about the rest of the project
differ restoring the theater does not come cheaply.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been on-going attempts to install
parking in the Park Street area since the 1970 s; there was effort
to save the theater in the 1980's; the project will not solve all
parking problems on Park Street; Webster Street potential parking
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,17,"problems need to be reviewed; the City has the opportunity to move
forward with the project; the developer is willing; financing is
available; there have been years of public study; that she has not
come across one person in Alameda who has said do not bother saving
the historic theater; saving the historic theater is not easy; no
one has attempted to run the theater for 25 years; that she is
trying to do what she believes is best for Alameda in the long
term.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether adding a multiplex cinema
to the historic theater makes the project economically viable
stated that he is concerned about the movie marketplace. a minimum
of 15 screens seems necessary to make money; seven screens
definitely will not make money that he is emphatic about getting
parking on Park Street; the theater should not overtake the benefit
of having a parking structure; the [Cineplex] design is ugly; the
trouble is placing the structure on a small parcel; there is not
enough money for the project.
Mayor Johnson stated the project would be easier to manage
financially if one of the goals was not saving the historic
theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated one reason for the [financial]
shortfall is because the City is paying for assets that will be
acquired, such as the parking structure and theater evidence
supports the financial feasibility of the project; requested an
explanation of the Planning Board action, including what approval
meant and what changes were made; requested the architect to
explain the basis of the design.
Rob Henry, The Henry Architects, stated that he inherited the
project after Michael Stanton Architectural firm designed the
building, which gave direction as to the massing of the building ;
that he tried to include scale, texture and materials that would be
compatible and advantageous to the downtown atmosphere; the project
was very difficult; the building's constraints cannot be ignored
the building has to have certain proportions in order to be a
successful theater design, which have led to difficult solution
with the building overhangs; that he has tried to cooperate with
the Design Review Board, the Planning Department, and the Planning
Board to address all concerns; the Planning Board placed a couple
of conditions on the design; one condition was to add some
additional texture to the panels on the corner of the building;
many options were studied; the decision was made to enhance the
context of the design, rather than introducing something totally
foreign to the basic design of the building; the established design
for the panels around the corner of the building was carried into
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,18,"more detail to provide a greater sense of continuity for the
overall design.
The Development Services Director stated there was a fairly long
pre-design discussion; first, the interiors and the project that
the developer wanted to build were done by Mr. Henry and given to
Michael Stanton who assisted through the design guideline process
and the public process; then, the Historical Advisory Board and
Planning Board established the design criteria addressing the
issues that the community thought were important; the criteria was
provided to the Architect, which were used as the basis for
beginning the project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Cineplex and parking
garage should have continuity of design; stated that he would like
the buildings to fit together currently, the two buildings stand
alone.
Mr. Henry responded the Cineplex and parking garage are two
different buildings with different functions; applying one design
to one type of building and expecting that design to apply to
another type building is difficult; the design comes out of the
internal organization, function and requirements of the project;
there is some relationship between the parking garage and Cineplex,
which was done purposely with vertical columns; the garage does
have a horizontal emphasis, which has been incorporated into the
Cineplex design to tie the buildings together; the essence of the
buildings is similar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Henry stated that he is
attempting to relate the horizontal elements of the parking
structure to the Cineplex, in spite of the historic theater having
mostly vertical elements.
Mr. Henry responded in the affirmative; stated architects debate
whether or not a new building built in a historic context should be
built to look like the historic building or be something of its own
character both sides have pros and cons.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the State guidelines
prohibit imitation of a historic building.
The Development Services Director responded that the Secretary of
Standards prohibits mimicking or creating a building that would
give the false impression that it was built in 1920 instead of
2005; the Secretary of Standards encourages incorporating historic
features and elements into the design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
18
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,19,"Counci deHaan inquired whether or not rounding off the
corner would be considered mimicking.
The Development Services Director responded rounding off would not
be mimicking; stated mimicking would be trying to make people
believe the building is art deco.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Cineplex and parking structure
corners could be smoothed; where the Cineplex steps back from the
historic theater there are funny, square windows.
The Development Services Director stated that she met with AAPS
last week; AAPS feels strongly about the need for a much stronger
vertical element; at a number of different public meetings
addressing design, people liked the glass lobby element.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the long, 20
to 21 inch, protrusions, which do not match the downtown district
and result in an awkward mass; that he would be happy if the
project was one-story; however, more screens are needed to make the
project financially feasible.
Councilmember Daysog thanked everyone for taking the time to voice
opinions; stated that the Council would vote on the appeal of the
Planning Board's decision regarding the project design and other
design related elements tonight that he is troubled by the
business deal aspects of the project and continues to struggle over
what constitutes the proper balance between fulfilling an earnest
desire for a historic movie theater that the community could be
proud of and the wise and prudent use of public dollars; that he is
also troubled by the fact that the cinema project is a negative $7
million and the new information tonight regarding the $0.40 per
square foot [rent] when market is $1.35; that the Council has a
fiduciary responsibility to exercise leadership when the public's
appetite for amenities conflicts with fiscal prudence; that he
understands the desire to restore the historic theater and that
some people want the Cineplex; however, he is struggling with the
rent; $0.40 per square foot is one-third of the market rate.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $1.35 market rate is
for commercial space or theater space, to which the Development
Services Director responded the rate is for brand new theater
space.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether data on other historic
theaters, such as the Fox Theater in Oakland, was available.
The Development Services Director responded that the Fox Theater is
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
19
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,20,"non-profit.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the comparison [of rent with brand
new theater ] is not fair.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a fair comparison because
people are going to walk into what amounts to a brand new
historically restored theater.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the building being historically
restored makes a difference.
Councilmember Daysog stated the historic restoration of the theater
is on the City's dime.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City would own the building.
Councilmember Daysog stated the City should charge a rent that is
at least as close to fair market as possible.
The Development Services Director stated that the developer would
be happy to lease at $1.35 per square foot if the City wanted to
build the cinemas.
Councilmember deHaan stated the impact of the project on the
downtown district is the real drive; that he cannot place a dollar
figure on how the project will improve the environment and make the
area more viable; catalyst projects are built to make things
happen; Park Street has a new vitality in spite of the City; John
Knowles was honored tonight; without real public funding, Mr.
Knowles set a standard of small, unique stores; 70% of the
merchants in stores ten years are gone because the City did not set
up an environment to retain businesses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated John Knowles project was not done in
spite of the City and with no public dollars because the
Redevelopment Manager's time was paid by the City's redevelopment
agency part of the project's value is that the City is getting
first run movies for $0.40 per square foot and people will spend
money in town, rather than elsewhere.
Councilmember Daysog stated that said value could also be realized
at $1.10 per square foot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated financial questions are outside
whether or not the Council should uphold the Planning Board's
decision, which is about design.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
20
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,21,"Mayor Johnson stated the rent is a percentage, not a straight $0.40
per square foot.
Valerie Ruma, Appellant, stated the Council is not reviewing the
environmental aspect, such as traffic; an environmental impact
report is required by the law before the project can go forward.
The Assistant City Attorney stated that the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires either a negative
declaration or Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; a letter from the
Appellant's attorney raised an issue that an EIR would have been
required if a fair argument was raised at the time the negative
declaration was initially adopted; the mitigated negative
declaration was adopted in May; pursuant to CEQA, the mitigated
negative declaration is presumed, by law, to be adequate if not
challenged within thirty days of approval; the mitigated negative
declaration was not challenged.
Ms. Ruma stated that the City Attorney's office provided
contradictory information that there was no specific appeal process
and the appeal tonight could be in written or oral form.
The Assistant City Attorney stated the substance of the design
review could be appealed but that the environmental review is not
being addressed tonight.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Assistant City Attorney discuss
the matter with Ms. Ruma.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the parking structure is a design/build
project; a picture was shown which was very similar to the proposed
design, except that the picture seemed more vertical with narrower
opening; inquired whether narrow openings would be an issue from a
construction standpoint.
The Development Services Director responded that she could not
answer whether the openings could be made smaller there are a
number of structural issues relative to the parking garage because
of other design achievements, such as the least amount of columns
possible inside the interior garage to provide maximum safety and
view; the design is contemplated to carry a lot of load on the
outside walls; that she would obtain an answer and provide the
information to Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there could be some type of
movement on the long, bare sidewall of the parking garage to give
it a feel other than just a flat wall.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
21
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,22,"The Development Services Director responded the wall would be built
on the property line; that she does not have the answer since the
structural piece has not been completed; a process has been started
to provide artists with an opportunity to prepare an attachable
mural.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the flat wall on the historical
theater has treatment and movement; although the theater cannot be
replicated, movement can be done.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture shows a wall with four
ins and outs.
The Development Services Director stated there is some
articulation.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that the picture
presented would not be the final design; the City has a public art
policy; the Public Arts Commission received five proposals from
local artists to create a design based on the adopted policy.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of accepting the appeal.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog's motion
was to reverse the decision of the Planning Board.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers
Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he looked at the Planning
Board's decision and the findings on both the Use Permit and Design
Review; he has difficulty with the subjectivity of what is
harmonious in design experts have discussed vertical and
horizontal elements; there are constraints with mimicking the
historic theater; the project is a good attempt to meet the goals
to use the historic theater for first run movies and provide
parking in an unobtrusive wayi inquired whether the Council could
attach conditions.
The Assistant City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the conditions that he would like to
see included in the motion to uphold the Planning Board's decision
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
22
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,23,"are a condition to have the façade treatment on the Oak Street
portion of the parking structure provide vertical elements similar
to the ones presented by AAPS and a condition to have the treatment
of the Central Avenue façade of the Cineplex provide a less modern
treatment of the window in between the historic theater and the
corner portion of the Cineplex second-story view spot that is
curved outwards.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated AAPS presented two pictures.
Mayor Johnson requested that the picture be shown.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the picture he was referring to was
not the garage in Staunton, Virginia.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the picture was of the garage with
openings.
The Business Development Division Manager stated the picture is of
a garage in Walnut Creek and displayed the picture.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council direction was to have
the [Cineplex] architecture be less modern than original
renderings.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
referring to ""less modern"" applies to the overhang that is on the
front of the Cineplex.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative; stated that
he was referring to the glass lobby that is curved.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese had any
direction in defining less modern.
Councilmember Matarrese responded squared off with some sloping
treatments; however, he is not an architect. the direction should
be general : the architect should come back with something less
modern for that window specifically and the architect should
understand the idea for the parking structure from the picture.
Mayor Johnson requested that the colors be more compatible; further
requested staff to review the possibility of having the ticket
booth out in front to make the historic theater look like it used
to look; stated the booth would not have to be useable.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
23
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,24,"Counci lmember Matarrese moved approval [of upholding the Planning
Board decision with the conditions outlined].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not
support the motion because he is concerned about the business deal;
charging rent of $0.40 per square foot gets the City $3 million;
charging rent of $0.80 per square foot would greatly increase the
amount and is still below the $1.35 per square foot market figure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current colors of the historic
theater are the original colors.
The Development Manager responded the original colors are not
known; however, the original colors were light.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about putting too
much on a small parcel; that he would like to see downscaling to
bring the project into some proportion; since downscaling is not
occurring, he would not support the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson -
3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-409) Michael Robinson, San Francisco Bay Resort Club,
submitted a letter to the Council; stated that he has been working
with Fish and Wild Life, the Veterans Administration, and the
Veterans Community Resource Federation (VCRF) to create a plan for
Alameda Point that provides for the needs of said entities;
requested the cooperation of City staff in submitting the resort
plans as part of the upcoming environmental review.
(05-410) Pete Clark stated the development of Alameda Point would
include transit opportunities.
(05-411) Connie J. Rozenkowski, VCRF, stated that there is a
proposed plan to convert the Bachelors' Enlisted Quarters at the
former Navy Base into a cultural center that would provide programs
for veterans, low income families, college students, and foster
care children leaving the foster care system; the programs would be
funded by the resort development.
(05-412) - Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed development.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
24
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,25,"(05-413) The following speakers addressed the Theater Parking
Structure Public Hearing : Valerie Ruma, Citizens for Megaplex Free
Alameda; Ani Dimusheve, Alameda; Jan Schaeffer, Alameda; Rosemary
McNally, Alameda; Robb Ratto, PSBA; and Jay Levine, Alameda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05 -414) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission, Golf
Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code
Hearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft and Robert F. Kelley
to the Economic Development Commission and Anthony M. Santare to
the Golf Commission.
(05-415) Councilmember deHaan stated that he received an
announcement for a Krusi Park Open House regarding an application
by Cingular Wireless to install a new wireless cell site at the
Krusi Park tennis courts; the announcement states that Cingular
does not own the existing site.
Mayor Johnson inquired who was sponsoring the Open House, to which
Councilmember deHann responded the Development Services Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought that Cingular developed
the first cell towers at Krusi Park.
The Business Development Division Manager stated that she would
investigate the matter.
(05-416) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Harbor Bay Ferry
has exceeded the 40% fare box for July; stated that advertisement
needs to continue; alternate fuel buying options may need to be
considered in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 2:40 a.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
25
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,26,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 16, 2005- - -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-395) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator
:
Arthur Hartinger of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson;
Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:45 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
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,27,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -6:45 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-039) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property:
Fleet Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties : Catellus
Limited Operating Partnership and Community Improvement Commissioni
Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission gave direction to
Real Property Negotiators and no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,28,"MINUTES
OF
THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - -AUGUST 16, 2005 - -7:35 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 2:40 a.m., August 17,
2005.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing the
Executive Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the DDA
[paragraph no. 05-042] was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting,
and the Special CIC Meeting of August 2, 2005. Approved.
(*05-041) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Cooper Pugeda
Management, Inc. ./The Allen Group, LLC for Construction Management
Services for rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater Project
and proposed Civic Center Parking Garage for $1,114,436. Accepted.
(05-042) Resolution No. 05-138, ""Authorizing the Executive
Director to Execute a Fourth Amendment to the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) by and Between the Community
Improvement Commission and Catellus Limited Operating Partnership
(Developer) Which Would Extend the Expiration Term by One Year From
June 2007 to June 2008 in Order to Allow the Developer to Explore a
Change from Commercial Office/Research and Development Land to a
Mixed-Use Retail/Residential Land Use at the Former U.S. Navy Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) Property. Adopted.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether adoption of the resolution
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-08-16,29,"would allow Catellus to explore a change in the current DDA.
The Development Services Director responded that the amendment
would allow Catellus to explore re-entitlement of the existing
property.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a public
process that would allow people to comment, to which the
Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he wanted people to be aware
that the matter would be publicly noticed and that Catellus would
be given a year to provide more information.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan
- 1.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 2:45 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
August 16, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-08-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:36 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-421 - ) Library Project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that she continually receives positive
comments from the public.
(05-422) Sherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association,
announced that the Peanut Butter Jam Festival would be held on
September 10 and 11, 2005 between Webster Street and Pacific
Avenue. presented wine glasses to the Council; thanked the City and
Alameda Power & Telecom for sponsoring the event.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
Mayor to send letters to federal legislators [paragraph no. 05-425]
was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-423) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on August 16, 2005. Approved.
(*05-424) Ratified bills in the amount of $11,953,915.90.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,2,"(05-425) Recommendation to authorize the Mayor to send letters to
federal legislators supporting S. 1260 (Vitter) S. 113
(Feinstein), H.R. 2353 (Rogers) , and H.R. 3431 (Dent ) which amend
federal legislation to further restrict the establishment of tribal
gambling casinos.
Doug Siden, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) thanked the
Council for the efforts to stop the gambling casino proposal at
Martin Luther King Park; encouraged continual vigilance; stated
that the Tribe's application has not been withdrawn; there has been
no response to EBRPD's communications to the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a true partnership between all
the affected cities, EBRPD, and the County; the public should be
informed of federal representatives actions; read a portion of the
proposed legislation: stated local control at the federal level
means the Governor that she would prefer local control be more
local; the Governor does not have much control over casinos there
is a lot of important work being done that will help the community.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there is a slew of legislation
pushing back on casinos' efforts to enter urban areas; H.R. 3431
would ensure local governments within 15 miles of a proposed site
have a say ; encouraged H. .R. 3431 be strengthened.
Councilmember Matarrese moved to approval of the staff
recommendation
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried
by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-426) Recommendatior to accept the work of Gallagher & Burk,
Inc. for repair and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 25, No.
P.W. 05-04-06. Accepted.
(*05-427) Recommendation to approve the Request for Proposals (RFP)
for Restaurant and Bar Services at the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.
Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-428 ) Resolution No. 13888, ""Commending Alameda Free Library
Director Susan H. Hardie for Her Contributions to the City of
Alameda. Adopted.
Counci lmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,3,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Ms. Hardie thanked the Council for the resolution; stated that it
has been her pleasure and privilege to be involved with the new
library project.
( 05-429 - ) Resolution No. 13889, ""Appointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
as a Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted
(05-429A) Resolution No. 13890, ""Reappointing Robert F. Kelly as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted; and
(05-429B) Resolution No. 13891, ""Reappointing Anthony M. Santare as
a Member of the Golf Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
[Note: Councilmember deHaan was away from the dais when the matter
was voted upon. ]
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Ashcraft and Mr. Santare.
(05-430) Public hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance
""Amending Alameda Municipal Code by Amending Chapter XIII (Building
and Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section 13-4 - (Alameda
Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New Article I,
Section 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004 California
Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.
Introduced.
The Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief
presentation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,4,"(05-431) Public hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's decision to impose penalties for unauthorized
demolition. The site is located at 616 Pacific Avenue, within the
R-4, Neighborhood Residential District. Applicant/Appellant: Erwin
Roxas and
(05-431A) Resolution No. 13892, ""Granting the Appeal and
Overturning the Historical Advisory Board's Decision to Uphold the
Five-Year Stay in Development for the Property Located at 616
Pacific Avenue. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the site's historic designation is
Level H; inquired whether Levels A through G are before Level H.
The Supervising Planner responded that designation ""N"" is for
buildings that could be placed on the National Register, ""S"" is for
buildings that could be placed on the State Register, and ""H"" is
the lowest level for potentially historic buildings that require
further investigation.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Opponent (Not in favor of appeal) : Kevin Frederick, Alameda.
Proponent (In favor of appeal) : Paul Rezucha, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated that she could not tell from the drawings that
24 studs were retained; the neighbor mentioned that studs from the
north and west walls were being retained; inquired whether parts of
the walls would be used in the interior of the house.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any of the exteriors walls would
remain, to which the Acting Planning and Building Director
responded that the sidewall and part of the front wall would
remain.
Mayor Johnson stated that the west and front walls appear to be
completely new.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,5,"The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the walls on
the right-hand side of the house and most of the front wall would
remain; a number of the back and left side walls would be inside.
the ordinance addresses demolition of more than 30% of the value of
a home enclosing an exterior wall is not considered demolition.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the intent of the ordinance was to
preserve the historic structure; questioned how retaining some of
the studs preserves a historic structure.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the
ordinance was intended to preserve the historic structure; the
first floor, sidewall, and front wall would remain; the roof would
be raised; determining that the demolition would be less than 30%
was reasonable.
Mayor Johnson stated that the front and west walls look like new
walls.
The Acting Planner/Building Official stated that the front wall
would be changed; the original house had 45 degree angles at the
corners ; the new house would be squared off; the side walls would
remain; moving doors and windows is not considered demolition.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue is deconstruction versus demolition;
the owner believes that deconstruction is not demolition.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he truly
believes that the owner understood that the Planning Department
gave permission to dismantle or deconstruct, stack the pieces in
the backyard, and put the pieces back when the dry rot was
repaired; the ordinance needs to be reviewed; interpretation is
somewhat vague.
Mayor Johnson stated the ordinance is not doing what was intended,
is not protecting the historic assets, and could result in more
damage than protection; inquired what are the options under the
ordinance; stated that she did not understand how the 3,400 square
foot structure got through the design review process; the houses in
the area are smaller, one-story craftsman style homes; a 3,400
square foot home is gigantic for the neighborhood.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the lot is one of
the biggest on the block; there are 21 residential structures,
including 10 two-story homes and 11 one-story homes ranging from
792 to 4,480 square feet; 17 of the structures are single-family
dwellings, 3 are duplexes, and one is a 5-unit apartment building ;
three buildings are between 3,000 and 3,500 square feet each
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,6,"directly in back of the lot on Lincoln Avenue 15 of the buildings
are owner-occupied and 6 are rentals; the construction period
ranges from 1895 to 1999; the neighborhood has a fairly good mix
[of houses]
Mayor Johnson stated that the design review process needs to be
reviewed; there are commercial and two-story structures in the
area; Lincoln Avenue structures should not be considered; inquired
whether moving a piece of the structure counts as demolition.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded not
necessarily; the project is viewed as a whole to determine if
demolition is more or less than 30%; a new, red stamp will be
placed on all plans to indicate the Historical Advisory Board's
(HAB's ) approval is needed prior to demolishing more than 30% of a
pre-1942 - home.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed; people think
that deconstruction and reconstruction do not count as demolition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the demolition issue is being reviewed
independently; someone could demolish less than 30% of a house and
build a structure that does not look historic; on the other hand, a
50% demolition and remodeling project could retain the historic
look; that she is not sure how the demolition can be separated from
the design review; the matter needs to be reviewed in terms of what
is being protected.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated the exterior walls
and roof percentages are reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the design does not reflect the historic
character of the building.
ouncilmember Daysog inquired when demolition versus deconstruction
issues would be addressed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded the issues
would be addressed as quickly as possible; that he would like to
review other jurisdiction's process.
Councilmember Daysog stated the situation is unfortunate; the
existing ordinance needs to be clarified; the Appellant needs to
move forward with the project for reasons stated in the report ;
staff and the Appellant have different interpretations; suggested
moving forward with the project and, at the same time, move forward
with resolving the larger issues.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,7,"Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how the dry rot issue should be handled
from a construction standpoint.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that rotted
wood needs to be removed; new members could be attached if termite
damage has been repaired; termite repair can be more than 30% of a
house.
Mayor Johnson stated the Appellant should have been referred to the
HAB to get a demolition permit when the rot was discovered.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the implication in
upholding the five-year stay.
The Supervising Planner responded the Appellant would need to
provide a landscaping plan and maintain the site for five years
with no building on it.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are other dynamics occurring;
inquired how many similar projects there are in the City.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are three
projects subject to the ordinance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether one project was resolved, to
which the Acting Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the bubble has been lost in the
interpretation of the ordinance; he is concerned with retaining the
architectural design; the scale seems to be imposing on the
neighborhood; inquired what the adjacent houses look like.
Mayor Johnson responded that the adjacent houses are both two-story
structures; that she does not recall the houses being close to
3,400 square feet.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the adjacent
houses are approximately 1,500 square feet each.
Councilmembei deHaan stated that there are multiple dwellings that
are expanding and becoming disproportional to the adjacent housing;
inquired whether the HAB reviews the issue.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that the HAB
would address the issue if a historical structure were involved.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what floor area ratio was being
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,8,"employed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he was not
sure; stated that the floor area ratio falls within the lot
coverage requirements.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what was the maximum lot coverage.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded 40%; stated the
lot is deceiving because of the area behind the neighbor's garage.
Mayor Johnson stated the portion that goes around the corner is not
visible; the house would be very large on the lot; inquired whether
a fine could be imposed instead of the five-year penalty.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there would be
increased fees based on the valuation of the construction, for work
without permit, and for investigation.
Mayor Johnson stated other people should not be allowed to
deconstruct and reconstruct until the ordinance is revised.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the staff is
erring on the cautious side and referring people to the HAB.
Councilmember Daysog stated the lot would be roughly 9,450 square
feet if the dog run was not included, which would be a .37% floor
area ratio; housing should be viewed in terms of adjacent homes as
well as appropriate lot size; the home fits the lot size; there is
not a monstrous home affect.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the direction has been
given to refer people to the HAB, to which the Acting Planning and
Building Director responded that people are being referred to the
HAB if demolition appears to be close to 30%.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that 30% could be a calculation
based on the structure of the building and not necessarily in
context with the intent of the ordinance; there should be some
discretion applied or guidance adopted allowing 25% or 30%
demolition to the front of a building and roofline would not meet
the real intent of the ordinance; inquired whether there is any
refinement on the plan check level that ties back to the issue of
design review.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that he makes the
30% determination during design review; that he always gives more
weight to the removal of exterior walls, particularly front walls,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,9,"versus interior walls.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was any guidance
being given now to prevent misinterpretation.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there are
no new guidelines i staff would be looking more closely.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to know that the intent
of the ordinance will be carried out; the drawings do not show any
resemblance to the original house.
Councilmember deHaan stated 30% is hard to interpreti inquired
whether the percentage should be more.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded a method other
than percentage should be defined.
Mayor Johnson stated that there is no need to wait for an ordinance
revision to carry out the intent noted that a defacto demolition
of a historic structure will not be allowed because of a badly
drafted ordinance.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the matter is
being addressed; there should not be any similar issues in the
future.
The City Manager stated that there have been many internal
discussions regarding the lack of direction in some parts of the
ordinance; inconsistencies need to be address guidelines would be
handled internally.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether deconstruction and reconstruction
would be addressed, to which the Acting Planning and Building
Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager stated that HAB input would be sought.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some structures have the potential for
historic designation but have not been certified; home owners
should not have to jump through hoops if the house is not truly
historic; many houses are old, but not historic; she does not want
to preserve old, non-historic houses inquired how the issue could
be balanced.
Mayor Johnson stated that owners could apply to have their houses
removed from the historic study list.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ""H"" designation is for old
houses that may have the potential to be historic, but need to be
studied more; houses may not be worth further study; a withdrawal
process for non-historic houses may be necessary; the project's
character issues can be addressed in design review.
Councilmember deHaan stated that 500 Central Avenue is a historical
structure.
The Supervising Planner stated that 500 Central Avenue has an ""S""
designation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that 30% demolition for 500 Central
Avenue was unrealistic and should have been at 80%; stated that he
has concerns with how tonight's decision would impact the two other
outstanding projects.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that tonight's
decision would only affect 500 Central Avenue; the other property
was not a listed building; there is another set of criteria for
ore-1942 houses; there was a whole different set of facts regarding
500 Central Avenue; the owner was aware of what he was doing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the owner's awareness was a
distinction that could be used.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that he thought
so; the owner tore down a house on the same property last year
without permits.
Mayor Johnson stated not setting precedents is important; inquired
whether the Appellant would have been successful in removing the
property from the historical list at either the HAB or Council
level.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that staff
believes that the Appellant would have been granted a certificate
of approval for demolition if sought prior to demolition; the house
has been significantly remodeled in the past 100 years; the house
is very similar to a building that received a certificate of
approval for demolition from the HAB; the Appellant was denied
after the fact.
Mayor Johnson stated that contributing factors are part of the
ordinance.
The City Manager stated that the ordinance needs to be reviewed in
terms of options and penalties each project will be reviewed and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,11,"determinations will be made based upon the circumstances of the
building.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether hold harmless clauses are standard
on planning and building resolutions.
The City Attorney responded the clause is not standard; the clause
is requested to be included in certain cases.
Councilmember deHaan stated that much of tonight's discussion is
based upon interpretation; stated that he is comfortable with the
staff's recommendation based upon what has been provided.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) is very active. AAPS
regularly advises him when there is any hint of activity.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether residents are advised about the
process to have their houses de-listed; some ambiguity could be
cleared.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there is not a
current process.
Councilmember Daysog stated many issues suggest the need to
strengthening
the
ordinance
with
regard
to
demolition/deconstruction of historic properties the project
should move forward; the Appellant was working in good faith; there
appears to be strong reasons for moving forward with the project
while the ordinance is improved.
Councilmember Daysog moved to approval of the staff recommendation.
[Adoption of the resolution Granting the Appeal and directing the
City Manager to review provisions of Section 13-21 of the Alameda
Municipal Code related to the demolition of historic structures and
develop, with input from the community and HAB, recommended
amendments and penalty options. ]
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the design issue could be re- -
examined.
The Supervising Planner stated that the design review has already
been approved; the Appellant has been acting under the approval.
Mayor Johnson stated that 3,400 square feet is too much for the
neighborhood.
The Supervising Planner stated that the Appellant could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,12,"requested to consider re-design; noted the Appellant has already
pulled permits and has vested the construction.
Mayor Johnson stated people would question why the project was
approved in ten years.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he understands Mayor Johnson's
concern with the size, but that the footprint is appropriate for
the parcel.
Mayor Johnson stated lot coverage cannot be dealt with in a vacuum;
the rest of the neighborhood needs to be addressed. requested that
staff inquire whether the Appellant would be willing to look at the
design review issue.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she sympathizes with Mayor Johnson's
concern about the size of the house; Alameda property owners have
certain rights if the structure fits within the box of the zoning
code; zoning for every other property in the City would be changed
unless the zoning code is changed.
Mayor Johnson stated that the issue should be re-examined; lot
coverage is not an entitlement there is a design review standard
for neighborhood compatibility.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the house would be architecturally
the same if cut back by 800 to 1,000 square feet.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what the neighbors thought about the
project.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded that there was
a ten-day notice and no comments were received.
Mayor Johnson inquired who received the notice, to which the Acting
Planning and Building Director responded the property owners.
Mayor Johnson stated renters would not be informed about the
project.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the
neighborhood is predominately owner occupied; County records
indicate that 15 of the 21 buildings are owner occupied; 6 of the
buildings are rental.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to address the possibility of
redesign with the Appellant.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,13,"***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 9:01 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular City Council Meeting at 9:10 p.m
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Applicant
is unable to redesign the house; the house is designed for an
elderly person in a wheelchair; the hallways are 5 feet wide;
several bathrooms have a turning radius for a wheelchair.
Mayor Johnson stated redesigning the sidewall would make the house
look better noted the wall looks like a factory wall.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Johnson stated that an
architectural separation between the stories would not be that
costly.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that the Appellant
could be requested to consider a different exterior sidewall
design.
The Appellant agreed.
Mayor Johnson stated the building could look a lot better than the
drawings; less detailed work is easier for an owner-builder; making
the building look better is worth the effort; the larger issue of
design review needs to be addressed; awareness of neighborhood
compatibility needs to be addressed in the design review process.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( 05-432 - ) Resolution No. 13893, ""Empowering the City Attorney to
Employ Special Legal Counsel. "" Adopted and
(05-432A) Recommendation to approve Policy regarding Hiring
Procedures for Special Legal Counsel.
Councilmember Daysog extended his appreciation to the City Attorney
for addressing some of the Council's issues; stated that the
resolution is not just for the Council but for the City for many
years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,14,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-433) Former Councilmemer Lil Arnerich, Alameda, discussed
disaster preparedness; stated that the Council should take charge
in working with the Police, Fire, Public Works Departments, and
schools to ensure that there is a detailed plan to provide
emergency services and information to the community in case of a
disaster submitted a list of the Alameda County Fair's response
team.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the tabletop exercise was performed
once a year.
Mr. Arnerich responded in the affirmative; stated that the exercise
is different from the City's exercise; noted the responsible
parties should be identified before a disaster occurs; the table
top exercise has been conducted every year for six years and works
very well.
(05-434) Bill Smith, Alameda discussed work/live studios, 500
Central Avenue, and fast boats.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-435) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, Public Art Commission and Recreation and Parks
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Karen Lee and K.C. Rosenberg for
reappointment to the Public Art Commission, and Terri Bertero Ogden
for appointment to the Recreation and Parks Commission.
(05-436) The Fire Chief provided information on Hurricane Katrina
Disaster Relief and the City's Emergency Operation Plan and
upcoming exercises.
Mayor Johnson stated that a lot of communication has been received
regarding Hurricane Katrina and the City's disaster preparednessi
noted that the Fire Chief would provide information on how the
community could help the hurricane victims.
The Fire Chief stated that Hurricane Katrina is a challenging and
unique type of disaster; continual flooding waters have delayed
infrastructure repair; financial contributions are needed; provided
contact information for the American Red Cross, the Salvation Army
and the United Way, Bay Area; stated that the City's Emergency
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,15,"Operation Plan is very comprehensive and outlines who is in charge
and the responsibilities of each individual; the Mayor and the
Council are the policy makers; the City Manager is in charge of the
Emergency Operations Center ( EOC ; the City Manager would provide
information on key decision points to the Council; EOC staff would
work 12-hour shifts throughout the duration of a disaster; the City
has a siren and warning system to effectively alert the community
in an emergency; the system keys the community to tune into Channel
15 or 1280 AM on the radio; there are over 100 people trained
through the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) ; some teams
have been organized in specific areas; there will be a series of
table top exercises in October and a functional exercise in
November the EOC would be activated during the table top
exercises; the City Manager and staff would be present and would be
given a complex scenario; logistical issues such as shelter, lost
power and water, and accesses to the City are addressed; the
emergency responders would work through a City-based scenario
during the functional exercise, while the Council would be making
policy decisions.
Mayor Johnson stated that it would be good for Councilmembers to
attend the exercises; part of the exercise should address which
issues are policy orientated; Councilmembers need to know where to
report and what their responsibilities are when a disaster occurs;
the phones and cable channels might not work during a disaster.
The Fire Chief stated that the Council would report to the
Chambers.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was not sure that the Council should
report to the Chambers if the electricity and cable are not
working; the issue needs to be addressed.
The Fire Chief stated that the first process would be for the
Council to report to the Chambers; another building would be
specified if the equipment in the Chambers was not working.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to better understand the
intent of having the Council report to the Chambers.
The Fire Chief stated that the Council would be involved in the
planning process.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to be better informed
and confident that plans are in place; stated that the Council
needs to know the worst-case scenario; there is a lot of sandy soil
and fill throughout the City; more than the bridges could be lost
in the event of an earthquake; some issues that the Council needs
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,16,"to
address are : how people would be evacuated, whether helicopters
would be available, and what would happen to the water supply;
people need to know how to turn off gas lines; stated that cable
communicatior would most likely be out during a disaster.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a current copy of the City's
Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter be placed on an agenda
for discussion; stated that questions have been raised regarding
the placement of people and the use of public facilities including
the schools; that he would rather not wait until the exercise is
performed in October; the matter needs to be addressed as soon as
possible; recommendations could be made and policy direction could
be given on what is in place now.
The City Manager stated that the Council would be provided with a
copy of the Emergency Operation Plan and that the matter could be
placed on an agenda for future discussion; issues that need
direction would be identified; sheltering questions could be
answered through the City's relationships with other agencies;
tonight's intention was to ensure that the audience knows where
contributions can be made to the current disaster victims and that
the City has a plan in case a disaster occurs.
ouncilmember deHaan stated that everyone has a heavy heart right
now; the gas surge was a best-case scenario; resources were
available to handle the situation; the liquefaction was monumental
(particularly at the Naval Air Station) during the earthquake
tonight's discussion is timely; noted that he was sorry the
discussion had to be within the current circumstances; stated that
the comments are worthwhile and appreciated; the Council has
responsibilities; stated that he takes the responsibility
seriously; he is concerned with communication and support resources
in the City; the Fire and Police Departments are on 24-hour shifts,
but other departments are not; stated that he looks forward to
further discussion.
( 05-437) - Councilmember Daysog requested: 1) an update on the
status of the live/work issues, 2) a timetable outlining when the
matter would be addressed, and 3) an update on the court issues.
(05-438) - Councilmember Daysog requested a review of current and
future developments occurring in the City of Oakland that could
have impacts on the City of Alameda; stated that a recent cable
television show mentioned a project that would be occurring at Jack
London Square.
(05-439) - Councilmember Daysog stated that there seem to have been
a number of accidents at the intersection of Constitution Way and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,17,"Pacific Avenue ; there was an accident yesterday around 4:00 p.m. ;
the Police and Fire Departments responded quicklyi there was a
death at the location last year and another death one block upi
requested the area be reviewed such as the possibility of bushes
being too high.
(05-440) Councilmember Daysog stated that he was glad that
disaster readiness was on the minds of everyone; the next disaster
or terrorism strike is not a matter of if, but when; planning ahead
benefits the community.
(05-441) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he received a
communication from the town of Asuchio, El Salvador in response to
a request from the Social Service Human Relations Board's (SSHRB)
Sister City Committee; requested the response be conveyed to the
SSHRB for consideration.
(05-442 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is a proposed
development between 29th Avenue and 23rd Avenue below International
Boulevard in Oakland for 800 to 1200 units of housing the two
streets feed into the Fruitvale and Park Street Bridges; the City
should keep an eye on development that occurs on both sides of the
Estuary.
(05-443) Councilmember deHaan stated periodic updates on the
budget are supposed to be provided to Council. inquired how often
the updates were to occur.
Mayor Johnson responded quarterly.
The City Manager stated that an update is scheduled for next month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the ten-year forecast would be
presented, to which the City Manager responded November, along with
the infrastructure budget.
ADJOURNMENT
(05-444) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 10:00 p.m. in memory of the Hurricane
Katrina victims.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-06,18,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 6, 2005- -6:10 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-417 - ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiator
:
Beverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney.
(05-418) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City
Attorney.
(05-419) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9 Number of cases: One.
(05-420) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the City Council Meeting at
7:25 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 10:05 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council discussed labor negotiations; regarding
Public Employee Performance Evaluation, the Council did not discuss
the matter; regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council
directed that the matter be further researched and brought back on
September 20, 2005; and regarding Conference with Real Property
Negotiators, the Council directed that a response letter be sent.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
September 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2005-7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
( 05-447) - Proclamation declaring October 2005 as United Nations
Month
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Herb Behrstock
and Mark Weinstein, Board Members for the East Bay Chapter of the
United Nations Association, and Michael Yoshi, Minister of the
Buena Vista United Methodist Church.
Mr. Behrstock thanked the Council for the proclamation; invited the
Council to attend a celebration of the 60th Anniversary of the
United Nations on October 21, 2005.
Cynthia Winton-Henry provided a handout regarding the October 21
event and urged attendance.
Mr. Yoshi thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated that the
October 21st event is the beginning of bringing communities together
in Alameda for the long term.
Ms. Carol Robe, Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) stated AUSD
is happy to be a co-sponsor for the October 21 event.
(05-448) Proclamation declaring September 18-24 as Pollution
Prevention Week in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sam McClymont
with RyNck Tires.
San McClymont, RyNck Tires, thanked the Council for the
proclamation; stated that the Alameda facility would be accepting
tires and oil at no cost.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,2,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 05-450] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *05-449 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings
held on September 6, 2005. Accepted.
(05-450) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,807,630.92
Mayor Johnson stated that improvements are being made for buying
within Alameda; a lot of office supplies, tires, and auto supplies
are purchased outside the City and outside the County; the check
register changed to make City versus non-City purchases more
apparent ; requested staff to examine how other communities program
to buy within the community; spending tax money outside of Alameda
should not be done unless necessaryi the Council could adopt a
resolution to formalize buying and hiring in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that a Buyer position be
reviewed; stated there are multiple sources for the same type of
materials; the check register shows two places for tire purchases,
with one in Oakland; a Buyer position may pay for itself by the
money saved in buying in bulk and negotiating contracts.
Mayor Johnson stated there are multiple providers for phone service
and copy maintenance and repair; some items are bought through a
County contract supporting jobs, creating tax revenue, and
supporting Alameda businesses are some of the benefits from buying
in Alameda.
The City Manager stated that all processes are being reviewed;
staff is working to have Alameda businesses meet the prices of
businesses outside Alameda; bulk purchasing would encourage meeting
the prices elsewhere.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should be hesitant to have COSTCO
memberships; items should be bought in Alameda questioned whether
money is really saved when residents' tax money is spent outside
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,3,"Alameda; $6,000 in stationery supplies was spent out of Alameda;
requested that the check register include totals for goods
purchased both in and out of Alameda and totals for services
purchased both in and out of Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan stated that various vendors have secondary
buyers; vendors should be encouraged to buy in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that a $6,000 purchase would generate
$60 in sales tax; bulk purchases may save more money.
Mayor Johnson stated that jobs and support for Alameda
organizations and non-profits are benefits in addition to the sales
tax; all factors need to be balanced.
Councilmember Daysog moved ratification of the bills in the amount
of $3,807,630.92
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *05-451) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Financial Report
for the Period Ending June 30, 2005 (Year-end) Accepted.
( *05-452 ) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for three marked police vehicles. Accepted.
(
*05-453) Recommendation to reject the Bids, adopt the modified
Specifications, and authorize a second Call for Bids for Cyclic
Sewer Repair Project Phase 4, No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.
(*05-454) Recommendation to amend the Construction Contract with
Ghilotti Brothers by increasing the contingency amount by $120,000
for the Park Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, No. P. W.
10-02-13. Accepted.
(*05-455) Recommendation to approve a Subdivision Improvement
Agreement with FOCIL-BP, LLC . Accepted; and
(*05-455A) Resolution No. 13894, ""Approving Final Map and Accepting
Certain Dedications and Offers of Dedication and Easement Vacations
for Tract 7512. "" Adopted.
(*05-456) Resolution No. 13895, ""Approving Parcel Map and Accepting
Dedication of Easements for Parcel Map No. 8725 (Bridgeside
Shopping Center) . "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,4,"Mayor Johnson stated that Mr. Norton's skill, leadership, and
experience enabled handling a tough situation; read the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that working with Mr. Norton has been a
privilege; she appreciates Mr. Norton's willingness to give of his
time and self, and for listening to the Council and community;
stated Mr. Norton did a terrific job in reaching out to the
community in some very difficult times.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has enjoyed Mr. Norton's
leadership; noted that Mr. Norton leads by example; stated
accomplishments were enjoyed; curveballs were tackled; Mr. Norton
recognized staff's skills; the ship was put back on course after a
difficult time; he has never seen such incredible leadership.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Norton; stated he appreciates
Mr. Norton's skills, professionalism, and enthusiasm; everything
was handled with a unique and successful approach.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Norton for his enthusiasm and
leadership; stated that the City Manager's work is set because of
Mr. Norton's work.
Mayor Johnson noted that former Councilmember Kerr was instrumental
in bringing Mr. Norton back into service.
Former Councilmember Kerr stated that the Council handed Mr. Norton
a disastrous budget ; the community thanks him for getting the job
done.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,5,"Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson presented Mr. Norton with the resolution, a pewter
plate, and an Alameda Point print.
(05-459) Resolution No. 13898, ""Reappointing Karen Lee as a Member
of the Public Art Commission. "" Adopted
(05-459A) Resolution No. 13899, ""Reappointing K. C. Rosenberg as a
Member of the Public Art Commission. Adopted; and
( 05-459B) Resolution No. 13900, ""Appointing Terri Bertero Ogden as
a Member of the Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Ms. Lee, Ms. Rosenberg, and Ms. Ogden.
(05-460) Ordinance No. 2945, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Repealing Article I, Section
13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) in Its Entirety and Adding a New
Article I, Section 13-4 (Alameda Electrical Code) to Adopt the 2004
California Electrical Code and Approve Certain Amendments Thereto.
""
Finally passed.
The Acting Planning and Building Director gave a brief
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-461) Recommendation to authorize the submission of an
application with the California Film Commission to enable City
participation in the Film Liaisons in California, Statewide (FLICS)
Program; and
(05-461A) Resolution No. 13901, ""Establishing the Alameda Film
Commission and Granting It the Formal Designation to Serve as Its
Film Liaison In California, Statewide (FLICS) with the California
Film Commission. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,6,"The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that establishing a Film Commission is a great
idea; a number of movies have been filmed in Alameda; inquired
about commission memberships in other communities.
The Development Services Director responded the memberships have a
strong industry representation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether half of the membership should be
from the industry and whether three marketing memberships should be
included.
The Development Services Director responded other communities'
experiences and selection process would be reviewed and provided to
the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Alameda Civic Light Opera has an
apprenticeship program; connecting the apprenticeship program with
filmmakers would be good.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis of other Film
Commission success rates to determine what membership works best.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City has some very unique assets;
Alameda Point is a great marketing tool; a Film Commission would be
helpful; consistency in the community is important; neighborhoods
have had short notification; consistency would come from Commission
and Planning Department guidance; positive steps are being taken.
The Development Services Director stated that sometimes the City
receives very little notice.
Councilmember deHaan stated that movie making would spill over into
the City; the City is a friendly community.
The Development Services Director stated that the community has fun
with filming activity; opportunities are available to engage the
community.
Mayor Johnson stated that the closure of the High Street Bridge for
filming was handled well / there was little traffic; people were
cooperative; no complaints were received since the filming; filming
can be accommodated, if handled properly.
Kappi Hommert, Alameda, submitted handout. stated that she helped
to start the Oakland Film Commissioni Alameda has not been able to
take advantage of the benefits associated with having a Film
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,7,"part of the Film Commission; noted a small city does not really
need a Film Commission; the City Council should be aware of what is
happening within the community.
Mayor Johnson stated a Film Commission should hopefully pay for
itself and create other benefits for the community.
Ms. Garcia-Sinclair inquired whether $9,000 was for website
development
Mayor Johnson responded $9,000 was for initial marketing materials
and the website.
Ms. Garcia-Sinclair encouraged hiring local residents for
background acting.
Liam Gray, Alameda, stated that he supports a Film Commission; the
Film Commission could dovetail on San Francisco's efforts to be a
digital Hollywood; the bridges, beach, and quaint streets are
perfect locations for productions.
Mayor Johnson directed the City Clerk to send applications to the
speakers.
Councilmember deHaan moved to approve the staff recommendation and
adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(05-462) Transmittal of Task Force report concerning strategies to
prevent mass termination of tenancies from large apartment
complexes and to create additional affordable housing
opportunities
Former Acting City Manager Bill Norton provided an overview of the
Task Force Report.
Mayor Johnson stated changing codes would encourage more
condominium conversion; subsidies for affordable units need to be
paid; inquired whether the units could be retained as rental units.
Mr. Norton responded that currently the condominium conversion
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,8,"ordinance allows the Planning Board to make decisions on what is
required; there are costs to improve properties; large complex
units are selling for $150,000 to $200,000 per unit; condominiums
are going for double the amount or more; property owners have some
room to make improvements, provide for inclusionary housing, and
still make a profit; the report states that discretion would be at
either the Planning Board or Council level when economically
feasible.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Council was being
requested to adopt concepts such as changing rules to allow for
condominium conversion or whether more analysis would be provided;
stated reviewing the analysis first might be better.
Mr. Norton responded that each property would be different; some
buildings are pre-1900 and the conversion and inclusionary housing
would be prohibitive; buildings constructed later meet a lot of the
current codes but still would command a significant value if
converted to condominiums; generalizing each piece of property is
difficult; the Council could direct staff to provide additional
review of the concept more time would be needed to get more detail
on condominium conversion upgrades and what the condominiums would
command if sold; minimum lot size, setback requirements, parking,
and some code compliance issues would be somewhat compromised;
staff would be relied upon to decide whether a specific case made
sense.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like a deeper level of
analysis; profile case studies should be done before approval of
the condominium conversion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council gave the Task Force two
specific charges 1) review how to prevent mass evictions, and 2)
review more affordable housing opportunities; the original
timeframe was to return with an answer to the Council in 90 days;
the Task Force did not return in 90 days because both charges were
very large; a very broad brush set of recommendations is presented;
the intent is to receive some Council feedback indicating whether
there is an interest in pursuing condominium conversions ; staff
would provide an analysis and bring the information back to the
Council, if there is an interest.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a real concern with health and
safety compliance and code enforcement there are some concerns
with landlords who are not properly managing property; inquired
whether there are other [code] issues on the horizon.
Mr. Norton responded that there is concern that the same situation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,9,"could happen at the same property in 5 or 10 years with the new
property owner; there are buildings in Alameda that are beautifully
maintained and others are not; the Task Force felt there should be
a more proactive approach when two or three complaints are
received; the Code currently allows people to complain to the City;
the City determines whether the property is in compliance; the Code
does not allow the City to go onto private property and force an
inspection unless there is probable cause.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was any evidence that a
Harbor Island Apartment type situation exists.
Mr. Norton responded that he was not aware of any large complex
problems; stated the Acting Planning and Building Director would
know better.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there was critism that the City
was the last to know about the Harbor Island Apartment situation;
the City needs to be the first to know about problems so that
action can be taken.
The Acting Planning and Building Director stated that there are no
major complexes that have anywhere near the number of complaints as
the Harbor Island Apartments.
Councilmember deHaan stated that ensuring the situation does not
reoccur is important; mechanisms addressed tonight would provide
reassurance.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Speakers : Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association of Northern
Alameda (submitted handout) ; *Lorraine Lilley, Housing Task Force
(submitted handout) i Barbara Kerr, Northside Association (submitted
handout) ; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Thomas Cook, Bonanza Apartments,
LLC; *Lynette Lee, Renewed Hope *Joel Rubenzahl; *Delores Wells
Guyton, Buena Vista Community Association; *Eve Bach, Arc Ecology
(submitted handout) i Bill Smith, Alameda; Carol Martino, Realty
World Martino Associates; *Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant
Association; Don Grappo, Alameda; *Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope ;
Bruce Carnes, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; Michael Yoshi,
Housing Task Force (submitted handout) Spoke in favor of the
Minority Report.
]
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mr. Norton stated that Mr. Yoshi provided him with a copy of a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,10,"Minority Report tonight and has requested to speak; some Task Force
members wanted to present recommendations that are not part of the
report; there are three recommendations that could be summarized by
Mr. Yoshi.
Mr. Yoshi presented the Minority Report.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the dust should not gather on
the work of the Task Force; he appreciates everyone's work; a
meeting with Kennedy Wilson is a good idea to ascertain intentions
and to work towards a goal of restoring the fabric of the
community; the Harbor Island Apartments are unique because of the
size; the thrust of preventing mass eviction has the most impact on
said complex; the advantages or disadvantages of controlling the
management by placing the property in a redevelopment area should
be reviewed; he supports going after code enforcement, fair housing
laws, and tenant-landlord laws; federal laws on fair housing and
inti-discrimination need to be enforced; the City needs to send a
message that there will be maximum enforcement of the laws; he is
disappointed with Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair Housing for not
stepping up to help the City advocate for the tenants; Legal Aid
sent lawyers to a City Council meeting advising there was no money
to help people file claims against the Fifteen Group; he would like
more time to review the Minority Report; the affordable housing
goal and the relationship of condominium presence or absence is
peripheral and at odds with the notion of preventing further mass
evictions; reviewing an alternate condominium conversion ordinance
is not appropriate at this time reviewing the possibility of
affordable housing for home ownership is in the back drop of
reviewing what eventually will be at Alameda Point; he would not
want to play into any intention that Kennedy Wilson might have to
convert the units into condominiums; the City and Task Force should
examine the matter; a combination of affordable ownership housing
and rental housing within the complex might be possible; the matter
would require a very detailed and specific discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated condominium conversion should be reviewed; the
impacts are unknown; reviewing the matter allows further
evaluation; condominium conversion is a way to achieve affordable
housing, which is a shortage in Alameda. many people prefer to buy
a house and others prefer renting; both should be accommodated a
limit can be placed to ensure too many units are not removed from
the rental stock; the Task Force Report is for discussion and
information; inquired whether the committee voted on the Task Force
Report.
Vice Mayor Gilmore responded the recommendations in the report were
arrived at through consensus.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,11,"Mr. Norton stated ideas were presented at each meeting; the ideas
were incorporated in the report if the majority of the Task Force
agreed; the Task Force had to weigh the value of more changes
versus providing a report to the Council within a certain period of
time; the Minority Report ideas were not presented to the Task
Force and could not be incorporated in the report.
Mr. Yoshi stated that there was discussion on whether there would
be a Minority Report because there was not a consensus.
Councilmember deHaan stated that one of the missions of the Task
Force was to develop potential strategies that may be considered in
the areas of code compliance, legislation, education, and new
initiatives to provide affordable housing the Task Force covered
the issues well; background information is important, particularly
in talks with Kennedy Wilson; the Task Force provided what was
requested.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Vice Mayor Gilmore for representing
the Council on the Task Force as well as the Task Force Committee
members; stated the bullet points regarding the health and safety
compliance and code enforcement are good he questions whether
bullet point #1 [ Increased Code Compliance and Enforcement
activities was meant to be open-ended or was meant to be targeted
towards instances as they arise on a case-by-case basis; requested
clarification; stated having rules in place and enforced at either
the State or local level is important someone needs to be held
accountable for the rules; questioned what needs to be done to make
the Council more accountable to ensure that a Harbor Island
Apartment situation does not occur again; stated housing issues in
Alameda are broken off into different areas such as the Rent Review
Advisory Committee, Housing Authority, Alameda Development
Corporation, and Code Compliance; bringing the areas together under
one roof to ensure that issues raised by one area are not
overlooked by others should be reviewed; the Council should be more
involved; improving the system of accountability is necessary.
Mayor Johnson stated that having the Council better informed has
been the emphasis in all areas; the Council needs to be involved in
establishing any Task Force in the future; any Task Force formed
should report back to the Council all information needs to come
together at a central location.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember
Matarrese's total disappointment in Legal Aid and Sentinel Fair
Housing nothing was done to help the tenants; moral outrage does
not get the attention of a morally bankrupt property owner; the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,12,"City tried to get the former property owner's attention by filing a
lawsuit; some of the tenants could have filed lawsuits if Legal Aid
stepped up earlier to help the tenants and provide support.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Task Force was
discharged; recommended that a meeting be scheduled with Kennedy
Wilson to provide background information, advise what the Council
wants, and to determine what Kennedy Wilson wants; requested that
staff outline a plan for how to put all the pieces together with
multiple City department involvement directed the City Manager to
put together a plan on how to enforce the Code, as well as State
and federal laws; stated a conscious direction should be given to
all players to provide a warning light before a melt down; he would
like to review the Minority Report before making any condominium
conversion comments.
Mayor Johnson inquired how tenants know where to complain about
property conditions.
The Acting Planning and Building Director responded there are
complaint forms on the website; departments refer complaints to
Code Enforcement; outreach is not currently available.
The City Manager stated that people coming to the counter are
referred to the Planning and Building Department; changes will be
incorporated on the forms to ensure that people are not discouraged
to report a complaint.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to review
prioritization of code compliance cases to ensure that resources
are correctly targeted; conditions at the Harbor Island Apartments
were raised by the Council for the past three years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that Kennedy Wilson is somewhat aware of
the Harbor Island Apartment history; the City and either the Task
Force or the Harbor Island Tenant Association members should meet
with Kennedy Wilson sooner rather than later; Kennedy Wilson would
be more conscious in the beginning to put their best foot forward
and would be more amiable to meet with members of the community;
scheduling a meeting with Kennedy Wilson should be a priority.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; stated
Kennedy Wilson should be advised about the City's expectations.
Councilmember deHaan stated that quite a few recommendations have
been made ; many of the recommendations should be adopted;
recommendations are not major policy decisions; he is concerned
that accepting some of the recommendations would be considered a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,13,"cure all : ; safeguards should be put in place to ensure that
apologies to the community will not be necessary because the boat
was missed; recommendations are a small example of the direction
that has been taken to ensure that matters will be addressed in a
proactive manner.
Councilmember Daysog stated improving the system for Council
accountability should be reviewed; ouncilmembers can learn a lot
from the Hurricane Katrina disaster; various levels of government
were involved, but the accountability rested with the President for
what went wrong; Kennedy Wilson's purchase of the property
represents a substantial investment in a part of the City that is
being redeveloped; Kennedy Wilson communications seem to be open
and receptive; he cautions moving the project sideways; the
condominium conversion ordinance is not ready to be modified, but
should be reviewed.
Mayor Johnson stated the direction recommendation could be to
request a study of the condominium conversion ordinance to examine
different methods.
The City Manager summarized Council's directions: 1) set up
a
meeting with Kennedy Wilson and Task Force representatives to
discuss the City's expectations, and how to avoid a similar
situation, 2) outline internal operations to ensure that the pieces
are put together to inform each other that all enforcement issues
are being communicated across department lines, and 3) study the
potential impacts of a condominium conversion ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to include
revising fine violations for boarded up buildings to a per-unit
basis with prosecution to the fullest extent.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-463) Richard Neveln, Alameda, discussed establishing a tourist
bureau; inquired when bus shelters would be installed on Park
Street.
Mayor Johnson responded that the bus shelters should be installed
by the end of next month.
(05-464) Don Grappo, IOOF, discussed sidewalk damage and tree
trimming issues at the corner of Park Street and Santa Clara
Avenue; stated that street repaving has caused an obstruction in
roof drainage; noted that the cell sites need to be raised.
(05-465) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed Alameda Point.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,14,"(05-466) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, submitted a handout regarding the
November ballot from The Alliance for a Better California.
( 05-467) - Delores Wells Guyton, Buena Vista Community Association,
stated that a tenant at the Santa Clara Avenue fire informed the
manager that her fire alarm did not work a year ago; annual
inspections for rental properties are important.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department does annual
inspections, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the
affirmative.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-468 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Economic Development Commission,
Historical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park Commission. Not addressed.
(05-469) Councilmember deHaan stated that there was excellent
action at the Santa Clara Avenue fire; the Red Cross moved the
families into a local church and was working with the last family
to determine where the family would spend the night the landlord
and manager of the unit had a listing of all the tenants; tenant
relocation was being considered to other units owned by the
manager ; the situation gave a strong feeling of being able to react
when necessary.
(05-470) Councilmember deHaan requested a traffic control update on
Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman Street.
(05-471) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she received a phone call
regarding the morning traffic situation at Island Drive and
Doolittle Drive and the length of time to get off Bay Farm Island
traveling both ways; the citizen noted that he had formally
contacted the Public Works Department about the problem a year ago;
requested staff to follow up on the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated that the traffic situation has worsened
recently; inquired whether there has been a change in the timing of
the signals; noted the traffic backs up on Island Drive; the
southbound traffic on Doolittle Drive is not as bad.
Councilmember deHaan stated the morning traffic going out to Harbor
Bay is also bad.
(05-472) Mayor Johnson requested further information on the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,15,"proposed athletic facilities at Bayport prior to finalizing the
agreement with the school district.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
the Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the information should be provided
in
conjunction with all field allocations and should address how the
process works, facility location, and the greatest needs.
(05-473) Mayor Johnson stated that the City of Modesto's cable
channel provides a lot of information such as employment
opportunities, City programs, and history; suggested that the
information scrolling on the City's cable channel be expanded to
provide more information to the public.
(05-474) Mayor Johnson stated that she would like staff to review
Oakland and San Leandro's Emergency Operation Plan; requested that
staff review the City's Emergency Operation Plan prior to the
workshop to see whether the Plan needs improvement.
The City Manager stated that staff is in the process of updating
the Plan; there have been some organizational changes staff will
review other cities' plans.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:36 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
15
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - -SEPTEMBER 20, 2005- -6:20 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-445) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiator:
Craig Jory; Employee Organizations International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(05-446) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation.
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9 Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council discussed International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers and gave directions to the agency negotiatori
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, the Council gave direction
to the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-09-20,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 - - - 7:27 P. M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:44 p.m. .
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-044) - Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
meetings of August 16, 2005. Approved.
(*05-045) Recommendation to approve a Contract with LPA, Inc. in an
amount not to exceed $148,500 to provide design development,
construction documents, coordination with the Department of the
State Architect, bid negotiations and construction administration
services for development of the Alameda Recreation and Parks
Department 4-acre community park at Bayport. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
September 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-09-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - OCTOBER 4, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:01 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-477) Mayor Johnson announced that consideration of City
Attorney's Contract renewal [paragraph no. 05-484] would be
continued to the October 5, 2005 Special City Council Meeting.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-478) Proclamation declaring October 16 through 22, 2005 as
National Business Women's Week in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Erica Neuman,
Isle City of Alameda Business and Professional Women Organization.
Ms. Neuman thanked the Council for the proclamation and presented
pink ribbons in observance of Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
(05-479) Proclamation declaring October 4, 2005 as Wind River
Appreciation Day
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Jeff Loehr
with Wind River.
Mr. Loehr thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated Wind
River is focused on helping the community and the world at large
and wants to help prepare the community for the least damage and
fatalities in the event of a disaster.
(05-480) Library Project Update.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the consent calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-04,2,"Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-481) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 20, 2005. Approved.
(*05-482) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,049,649.49.
(*05-483) Recommendation to approve issuance of the Request for
Proposals for a Materials Security and Inventory System for the
Alameda Free Library Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-484) Consideration of City Attorney's Contract Renewal.
Continued to the October 5, 2005 Special City Council Meeting.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-485 ) Susan Potter, Alameda, inquired on the status of rolling
stores stated that she applied for a permit to do business as an
espresso truck over a year ago; all County and State health
inspections have been passed; other businesses are doing what she
has been told she cannot do.
Mayor Johnson stated that the issue was referred to the Planning
Board.
The Assistant City Manager stated the Planning Board had a work
session on the issue and was not enthusiastic with moving forward
the impacts on community neighborhoods were a concern; staff was
requested to work further on the issue; stated a report will be
presented to the Council.
Mayor Johnson requested that information on the Planning Board's
decision be provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a decision needs to be made on the
matter; the law needs to be enforced or changed; mobile vendors
should not be allowed if the Planning Board has reservations on the
concept.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether anything prevented someone from
entering into an agreement with a property owner.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-04,3,"The Assistant City Manager responded the rolling store provisions
address the use of City streets.
Councilmember Matarrese stated other people are using City streets
for the very same purpose; the City needs to allow for the use of
City streets or ticket the people in violation of the law.
The City Manager stated that staff would get back to the Council on
the matter
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Recreation and Park Commission
was requested to review the use of public activities in parks;
requested an update from the Recreation and Park Commission.
(05-486 - ) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed light rail and disaster
preparedness.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
( 05-487) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues, Economic
Development Commission, Historical Advisory Board, Housing and
Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, and Recreation and Park
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Avonnet M. Peeler to the Civil Service
Board; Audrey M. Lord-Hausman to the Commission on Disability
Issues; and, Janet W. Iverson to the Historical Advisory Board.
(05-488) Councilmember deHaan stated that there is an unusual,
glob-like substance in the southern and eastern portion of the
City; requested staff to investigate the matter.
(05-489) Mayor Johnson stated that many senior citizens are not
participating in the Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program
because a waiver releasing the City from any liability is required;
requested that staff review the matter; stated the senior citizens
are willing to sign the waiver for liability during a disaster, but
are not willing to sign a blanket waiver.
(05-490) Mayor Johnson stated some cities' animal shelters place
pictures on the internet; people can use the internet to look for
pets or look to adopt inquired whether the internet is utilized.
The City Manager responded that staff would look into the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-04,4,"ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:30 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
4
October 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-04,5,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - OCTOBER 4, 2005 - - 6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
Public Comment
Ed Murphy, Alameda, read and submitted comments regarding the City
Attorney.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-475) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and
Confidential Employees Association.
(05-476) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiator
:
Arthur Hartinger/Kathy Mount of Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and
Wilson; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed labor
negotiations regarding the International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers and instructions were given to labor negotiators; and the
Council discussed labor negotiations regarding the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:55 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
October 4, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -OCTOBER 5, 2005- -6:05 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:20 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
Agenda Items
(05 5-491) - Adjournment to Closed Session to consider Conference
with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiator : Arthur Hartinger of
Meyers, Nave, Riback Silver and Wilson Employee: City Attorney ;
and
(05-491A) Consideration of City Attorney's Contract Renewal.
Ed Murphy, Alameda, read and submitted comments regarding the City
Attorney.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council met in closed session with labor
negotiators and reached agreement relating to the automatic renewal
provision of the City Attorney's Contract.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:18 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
October 5, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - OCTOBER 18, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:33 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-497) Proclamation declaring the month of October as Disability
Awareness Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ed Cooney,
member of the Commission on Disability Issues.
Mr. Cooney thanked the Council for the proclamation and for
recognizing the value of people who live with disabilities.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( * 05-498) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on October 4, 2005, and Special City Council Meeting held on
October 5, 2005. Approved.
(*05-499) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,008,412.36.
(*05-500) Recommendation to authorize execution of a Contract with
Southern California Risk Management Associates for Third Party
Administrator Services for the City's Workers' Compensation
Program. Accepted.
(*05-501) - Recommendation to award Abandoned Vehicle Towing Contract
to A & B Towing. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,2,"(*05-502) Resolution No. 13902, ""Approving and Adopting the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Overall Annual Goal of
11% for Federal Fiscal Year 2005-2006. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-503) Resolution No. 13903, ""Appointing Avonnet M. Peeler as a
Member of the Civil Service Board. Adopted;
(05-503A) Resolution No. 13904, ""Appointing Audrey M. Lord-Hausman
as a Member of the Commission on Disability Issues. "" Adopted; and
(05-503B) Resolution No. 13905, ""Appointing Janet W. Iverson as a
Member of the Historical Advisory Board. (Landscape Architect,
Architect, Building Design Seat). "" Adopted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Peeler with
a certificate of appointment.
05-504) Recommendation to approve the proposed change in roof
color for the Alameda Free Library - New Main Library Project, No.
P.W. 01-03-01.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the architect recommended a roof
color.
The Project Manager responded that the architect favored the
lighter gray, but would be comfortable with either gray; stated the
lighter gray has more reflectivity and would keep the structure
cooler.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Library Building Team (LBT) had
a strong color preference.
The Assistant City Manager responded that the darker gray color was
the LBT's unanimous selection.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report outlining items removed
through value engineering; requested a run down of cost
differences; stated that copper roofs are extremely durable;
inquired whether the proposed roof would have yearly maintenance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,3,"The Project Manager responded that the proposed roof would not
require annual maintenance; the roof and paint materials have a 25-
year guarantee; the architect stated that a coating could be
applied if the paint starts to fade after 25 years; cleaning,
priming and repainting would be done after 25 years and an
additional 25 years would be guaranteed; the cost is between $3 and
$6 per square foot, which would amount to approximately $25,000 to
$30,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the cost difference between a
copper roof and the proposed roof.
The Project Manager responded the cost difference is approximately
$60,000 stated the copper roof was a deductive alternative in the
bid package. the architect put in a series of deductive
alternatives and add alls in response to budget concerns; the
roofing deductive alternative was an approximate $20,000 value; all
add alls were rejected and all deductive alternatives were
accepted.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the cost difference for installing
the cooper roof was $60,000.
The Project Manager responded in the negative; stated the value
engineering cost was $60,000 there is currently no price on the
installation of a copper roof; the contractor stated that work
would need to be stopped for 45-65 days until the current
subcontract was extinguished, a new subcontract was executed,
materials were acquired, and the roof installed the contractor
wants to start putting in the heating and cooling duct work; the
duct work could get wet if installed before closing the building.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the roof's base metal.
The Project Manager provided a handout responded that the base
metal is 24-gage galvalume steel composed of 45% zinc and 55%
aluminum.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be deterioration
of the base metal without the protective shield.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the color
coating was also warranted for 25 years.
Councilmember deHaan stated that copper roofs bleed; inquired
whether copper could stain the structure.
The Project Manager responded that staining could potentially
occur. .
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,4,"Alameda City Council
4
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,5,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the IT change would be helpful
to have in a written report for reference.
(05-505) Recommendation to authorize payment for and ratification
of an open market purchase from Leader Industries of an ambulance
in the amount of $142,743.35.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-506 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the new owners of the
Harbor Island Apartments have outlined how they are going to
operate the new complex; he feels comfortable with the new owners ;
the curb strip on Appezzato Parkway needs to be addressed; planting
trees is important to balance the community in spite of existing
litigation; the area is high density and lends itself to
transportation alternatives the City should make every effort to
properly indoctrinate the new population and the virtues of public
transportation in a meaningful way inquired how staff was
addressing the issues.
Mayor Johnson noted that someone mentioned to her that there was a
bus stop along the dirt area on Appezzato Parkway people have to
walk through the mud to get to the bus stop in the winter months ;
requested staff to investigate the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the bus shelter is one of the
cheaper shelters and only has two seats; bus shelter accommodations
should be better.
(05-507) - ) Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a new spirit at
the League of California Cities because of Propositions 1A and 76;
84% percent of the voters supported cities; there was a workshop on
revenue, taxation, transportation, communication and public works;
the workshop addressed how the telecommunication revolution would
affect cities; the policy could be set at the State and could
overturn some franchise agreements.
(05-508) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the League of California
Cities noted that Proposition 1A was successful but did not do
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,6,"anything to protect redevelopment money; no one is certain that the
State will be able to meet all its financial commitments without
looking to cities again.
(05-509) Councilmember Daysog stated that the League of California
Cities endorsed Proposition 76 which addresses the smoothing out
of the fiscal situation at the State level; Proposition 76 could
have impacts at the local level and even more so on school
districts.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular meeting at 9:04 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
6
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,7,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 18, 2005 - -5:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-492) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiator
:
Beverly Johnson; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the
labor negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:50 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
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,8,"Employee : City Attorney. Not heard.
(05-494) - Consideration of City Attorney contract. Not heard.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 18, 2005 - -6:40 P.M.
(05-495 - ) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2900
Main Street ; Negotiating Parties : City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under Negotiation: Price and terms. Not heard.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 18, 2005- -6:55 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(05-496CC/05-046CIC ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V.
City of Alameda, et al.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the louncil/Commission
obtained briefing and gave direction to the City Attorney/Legal
Counsel stated the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) is
choosing to assume defense of the litigation since the CIC has the
most invested in this project; the CIC desires to retain control of
the defense.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - OCTOBER 18, 2005 - - - 7:25 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:30 p.m. Junior Girl
Scout Troop #2512 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( 05-047) - Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission
Meeting of September 20, 2005. Approved.
(*05-048 - ) Recommendation to approve a Predevelopment Agreement with
the Alameda Unified School District for Affordable Housing at the
Island High School site. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-10-18,12,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -OCTOBER 18, 2005 - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 9:04 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
Public Comment
Bill Smith, Alameda, showed renderings of a transit rail.
(05-510) Study Session on Disaster Preparedness/Emergency
Operations Plan.
The Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.
The Council requested information on the following: designated
decision makers, policy versus non-policy decisions, the earthquake
level that bridges can endure, School District and hospital
assistance coordination, long-term drinking water options, hospital
interaction in the event of an epidemic, utilization of the Hornet
for storing supplies, and clearer direction to participants in the
Citizen Emergency Response Team (CERT) program.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:32 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
October 18, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-10-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-516) Councilmember deHaan stated that he thought the Public
Hearing to accept new, revised preliminary designs for the Cineplex
and a 352-space parking structure [paragraph no. 05-524] and the
Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning Board's
approval of Use Permits [paragraph no. 05-525] should be heard in
reverse order.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-517) - Proclamation honoring the developers of the Marketplace,
and declaring November 1, 2005 as Donna Layburn, Paul Hossack, and
Gerald Mackey Appreciation Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Donna Layburn
and Gerald Mackey, developers of the Marketplace.
Donna Layburn thanked the Council for the proclamation and support.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the developers for persevering.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he appreciates moving forward with
the developer's vision.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Marketplace is a great place to
shop; tenants have created a wonderful synergy; owners are
friendly, outgoing, and helpful.
Valerie Ruma, Alameda, stated that she is a fan of the marketplace.
(05-518) Library project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief project update.
Mayor Johnson requested that the Project Manager alert the Council
on available options if the project is still under budget.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,2,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether items removed through value
engineering were prioritized, to which the Project Manager
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan requested that items removed through value
engineering be prioritized by cost and gain.
Councilmember Matarrese stated direction was given to review
longevity versus spending; analysis should be given to saving
$26,000 today and spending $60,000 for restroom rehabilitation in
the future because durable countertops were not installed.
The Project Manager stated there was significant discussion on the
countertop issues; countertop prices would be provided to the
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on long-term projections
for replacement costs.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(*05-519) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on October 18, 2005. Approved.
(*05-520) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,861,380.74.
( *05-521) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for the period ending September 30, 2005. Accepted.
( *05-522) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to pay Bay
Ship & Yacht Company $134,598.19 for facility upgrades to the Main
Street Ferry Terminal. Accepted.
(*05-523) Resolution No. 13906, ""Amending Resolution No. 9460 to
Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City
of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution
No. 13726. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,3,"(05-524) ) Public Hearing to accept new, revised preliminary designs
for the cineplex and a 352-space parking structure at the corner of
Oak Street and Central Avenue, within the C-C T (Community
Commercial Theater) Zoning District.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation on the
project.
Mr. Towey with Komorous-Towey Architects gave a Power Point
presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are seven parking levels;
inquired whether the elevator tower reached up to the seventh
level.
The Architect responded in the negative; stated the previous and
current designs are the same; the seventh level was extended to
make up for some lost spaces.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the highest peak would be the
elevator tower and whether the roof level was now 70 feet.
The Architect responded that the top of the elevator tower was the
highest point.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the canopies look industrial
;
inquired whether other options were considered.
The Architect responded that the industrial nature of the canopies
could be valid, depending on execution; the historical period being
evaluated had very flat and thin awnings many were roll out
awnings; the intention is to keep the metal very flat and thin as
opposed to having a sloping top; the corrugated metal would not be
visible; the canopies could be executed to look finished.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was another design
which could pull back the 20 inch protrusion.
The Architect responded that the previous design studied what would
occur if the protrusion had to be pulled back; twenty-five seats
and a few feet off one of the screen's sides would be lost; his
charge was to work with the approved floor plans.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of the design) : Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Pete
Halberstadt, Alameda (read a list of 33 people in favor of the
design) ; Chuck Millar, Alameda; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda; Sherri
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,4,"Stieg, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,
Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of the design) : Anthony Mark, Oakland;
Birgitt Evans, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) i
Jack Boeger, Alameda: Christopher Buckley, AAPS Richard Rutter,
AAPS; Irene Dieter, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Valerie Ruma,
Alameda; Victoria Ashley, Alameda; Vern Marsh, Alameda; Robert
Gavrich, Alameda (submitted comments) i Jay Levine, Alameda
(submitted comments) ; Jon Spangler, Alameda Ron Schaeffer, CMFA
(submitted comments) i Kevin Fredrick, Alameda; David Miller,
Alameda; Dave Kerwin, Alameda.
There be no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the project design was light years
ahead of the previous design.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
Council direction was followed to make the façade less modern,
match the architectural character of the existing theater, and
accommodate the project; the project should be accepted.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is comfortable with the design;
the design addresses some of the AAPS's concerns and project
continuity; he appreciates that time was taken to review the
design.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is particularly pleased with the
parking garage the staff and Architect did an excellent job of
following Council direction; thanked AAPS for input; stated the
parking garage is an excellent design.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the staff's and
Architect's work; improvements are outstanding; the project should
move forward.
Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned with the 70-foot - high
parking structure, which would be even with the marquee; stated
Mariner Square's new boat storage facility is 50-feet tall; Alameda
Point Hangers 41 and 39 are 45-feet tall; massing is a concern.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter
several months ago on very narrow grounds, which still stand; he is
concerned that the City is not getting the best business deal out
of the project; the rent on the historic theater amounts to 30
cents per square foot when the market rate is around $1.50 to $1.80
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,5,"per square foot charging 60 cents would amount to millions of
dollars over time; the Council cannot treat fiscal issues lightly
there is pent up demand for a movie theater in Alameda; he is
concerned with project development a lot of public dollars are
being put into the project; $9 million is being put into the
historic theater and more is being put into the parking garage and
cineplex; public investment would be paid back through future tax
increments; redevelopment needs to add value and not just recoup
investments; projects need to generate sales tax, more property
taxes, and more revenues; investments are being made that are not
just redevelopment dollars, but dollars that previously went to
other taxing public entities; the promise of redevelopment is not
just to revitalize blighted areas but also to pay back entities
there would not be associated redevelopment costs if there was a
better business deal; the project is more of a street and sidewalk
public works project, where recouping of public funds is not
expected; he is glad that the historic theater would be restored;
he is concerned with getting the best possible rent for the City a
beautiful project should never trump bottom line considerations; he
will stick to his guns regarding the fiscal aspects of the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council voted on the business plan in
May; Councilmember Daysog voted for the business plan, which
included the square footage rental; the historic Alameda theater
project is not intended to be strictly a business deal, but also a
historic renovation project; a new cineplex could be built for less
money; the historic theater is being significantly restored; she
would hope that a second and third phase restoration could be done;
saving the building first is necessary.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted for the Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) in May; a DDA is never consummated
until all the land use approvals are put in place per the Municipal
Code; financial feasibility was referenced when the Downtown Vision
Plan was adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the revised design of the
cineplex and the parking structure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes :  ouncilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstentions
:
Councilmember deHaan - 1.
(05-525) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's approval of Use Permits for a) multi-screen theatre, live
theatre, and public assembly use in the C-C T district pursuant to
AMC Subsection 30-4.22; b) fifty eight (58' ) foot building height
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,6,"for the Cineplex pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.g.2; and c)
extended hours of operation until 3:00 a.m. for the theatre
pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.c. 1 (a) for up to 24 days per
year. The site is located at 2305 - -2317 Central Avenue, within the
C-C T (Community Commercial Theatre Combining) District.
Applicants : Kyle Conner, Alameda Entertainment Associates, LP.
Appellants : Ani Dimusheva and Robert Gavrich; and
(05-525A) Resolution No. 13907, ""Upholding the Planning Board's
Approval of Use Permit UP05-0018 for A) Multi-Screen - Theater, Live
Theater, and Public Assembly Use in the C-C T District Pursuant to
AMC Subsection 30-4.22; B) Fifty Eight Foot (58' ) Building Height
for the Cineplex Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A. G-2; and (C)
Extended Hours of Operation until 3:00 A.M. for 24 Days per Year
for the Theater Pursuant to AMC Subsection 30-4.9A.C.1 (A) for
Occasional Special Events and Screenings, with a condition that an
analysis of late-night screening be conducted after 12 events or a
year, whichever comes first. "" Adopted.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation on the project.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Opponents (Not in favor of the project) : Jenny Curtis; Citizens for
a Megaplex-Fre Alameda (CMFA) (submitted comments) ; Valerie Ruma,
CMFA (submitted comments) ; Ani Dimusheva, Appellant Alice Ray,
CMFA (submitted comments) ; Kristi Koenen, CMFA; Andy Crockett, CMFA
(submitted comments) ; Vern Marsh, CMFA; Phyllis Greenwood, CMFA;
Lew Brentano, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Joe Meylor, CMFA; Robert
Gavrich, Appellant (submitted comments) ; Paula Rainey, CMFA; Kevin
Fredrick, CMFA; Russell Kirk, CMFA (submitted comments) ; Richard
McClure II, Alameda (not present) ; Arthur Lipow, Alameda (submitted
letter) ; Deborah Overfield; David Kirwin, Alameda; David Miller,
Alameda Jon Spangler, Alameda; Gary McAffe, Alameda; Mark Dombeck,
Alameda Ana Rojas, Alameda; Clyde Serda, Alameda (submitted
comments) i Glen Vivion; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Rosemary McNally,
Alameda (submitted comments) ; William F. Assali, Alameda (not
present) ; Irene Dieter, Alameda.
Proponents (In favor of the project) : Rich Warner, Alameda Gail
Wetzork, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Alameda; Cathy Leong,
Alameda Kevin Leong, Alameda. Fritz Mayer, Alameda; Bruce Reeves,
Alameda (not present) ; Harvey Brook, Alameda; Lars Hanson, Park
Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Barbara Marchand, Marchand
Associates; Sherri Hansell, Alameda; Mary Amen; Debbie George,
Alameda; Lowell Schneider, (PSBA) ; Blake Brydon, Alameda; Barry
Finkelstein, Alameda; Mike Corbitt, Chamber of Commerce Board;
Chuck Carlise; Alameda; Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda (not present) ;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,7,"Robert Doumitt, Alameda (not present) ; Robert McKean, Alameda;
Sherri Stieg, WABA; Walt Jacobs, Chamber of Commerce (not present) ;
Kyle Conner, Applicant; Harry Hartman, Alameda (not present) i Nancy
Brandt, Alameda; Michael Torrey, Alameda; Frank George, Alameda. ;
Melody Marr, Chamber of Commerce (read list of 14 people in favor
of the project) ; Duane Watson, Lee Auto Supply.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Councilmember Daysog stated that people can always agree to
disagree but should not be disagreeable; Councilmembers he has
worked with since 1996 have all had the interest of the community
in mind; the community must move forward regardless of tonight's
decision; he has always focused on the dollars and cents of a
project he has reservations with the proposed alternative; other
cities are doing other things El Cerrito has purchased a historic
theater and is contracting with a company to run the theater
Orinda is working with a non-profit group to preserve its historic
theater; he will support the Appeal because of the dollars and
cents issue; 30 cents per square foot would generate $3 million
versus 60 cents per square foot generating $6 million over the life
of a twenty year project; stated he respects the other
Councilmembers' opinions.
Councilmember deHaan stated seven downtown parking sights were
reviewed in October 2002; the sites were narrowed down to three:
the Elk's Club, Longs, and Bank of America; the report showing that
Video Maniacs was one of the sites is in error; inquired when the
Video Maniacs site came into play.
The Development Services Director responded that Video Maniacs was
considered as a site in a parking analysis prior to October 2002;
the opportunity was shifted to Long's there was additional
dialogue combining the two sites; the shift went back to the Video
Maniacs site when Long's no longer wanted to work with the City.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Video Maniacs was identified as a
parking structure before the cineplex review; inquired whether five
screens were ever considered.
The Development Services Director responded there were a number of
proposals that had a combination of multiple screens five screens
in the historic theater were never considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was referring to five screens
in the cineplex.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,8,"The Development Services Director stated screen size and number of
seats were discussed; internal evaluations included reviewing
something smaller.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were
recommended.
The Development Services Director responded that staff concluded
that five screens would not be viable as competition continued to
increase in the area.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the viability of a five-
screen theater was understood.
The Development Services Director responded different product and
configurations were reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether five screens were considered
and recommended by staff.
The Development Services Director responded moving forward on the
matter was considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 7 of the staff report
addresses parking garage availability; the bottom line notes that
the parking garage and available parking would still have an extra
capacity of about 335, the day after the parking structure was
built; inquired whether there was a change in October 2005.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Page 28 of the study notes there
would be additional parking; he is concerned about using off-street
parking; inquired whether off-street private parking could be used.
The Development Services Director responded that the referenced
study includes the Library; the studies are not comparable; there
was some accommodation for off-street parking within the
calculation of the use of the Library; off-street parking has not
been calculated for the parking structure, cineplex or historic
theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why private parking was included.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
private parking lots that are not owned by the City, such as the
Bank of America lot that make up part of the mix; the parking lots
become part of the available population when office workers go
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,9,"home. parking supply is not just public parking.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is no entitlement to private
parking.
***
Councilmember Daysog moved that the Regular Meeting be continued to
past midnight.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether private parking could be used
if there was an agreement with the owners.
The Development Services Director responded that covenants are not
sought from owners for parking access.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a parking structure would not be
needed according to information provided in a 2000 study; the study
noted that 204 spaces were available on Saturday evenings; inquired
how impacts from the Masonic Temple, high school, Kaufman
Auditorium and Elks Club were calculated.
The Development Services Director responded that the analysis did
not assume anything other than normal activity seasonable events
overwork a parking supply and change the normal scenario; the
analysis reviews typical peak times and does not focus on the
unusual.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why the 70-foot parking structure was
not included in the September 29, 2005 staff report.
The Development Services Director responded the report was prior to
the new project.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 70-foot parking structure
was equivalent to the Alameda Theater sign and the Twin Tower
spiral.
The Development Services Director responded the 70-foot parking
structure was the interior of the mechanical system elevator
penthouse on the parking structure only; stated the Oak Street
façade of the parking structure has now dropped to 48 feet; the
final ramp roof of the sixth story goes up to just below 70 feet.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there were always seven
levels to which the Development Services Director responded the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,10,"sixth story roof parking was always in place.
Councilmember deHaan stated the setbacks were done well; the cost
per square foot increases with higher levels; inquired whether the
soil conditions have been reviewed.
The Development Services Director responded that the site has sandy
soil.
The Redevelopment Manager stated that a professional geotechnical
consultant prepared a soil report; the loose sand would need to be
removed; compacted, new soil would have to be brought in or the
grade below could be used to add some additional spaces to make up
for the setback.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether exterior architectural
treatment would add to the cost.
The Development Services Director responded there are some cost
savings with the revised design the goal was to have the parking
garage structure cost under or at budget; removing the brick was a
savings; providing long, side openings would save on ventilation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a cost estimate for
the parking structure.
The Development Services Director responded that there was a
ballpark estimate from the Architect; the Architect feels the
project was close, if not under budget removing ventilation and
sprinkling would save money.
Councilmember deHaan stated the October 2002 cost estimate for 269
spaces was $5.4 million.
The Development Services stated the estimate was the cost per
parking space without land acquisition, relocation, and all soft
costs for design and engineering; hard construction costs per space
was approximately $18,000 to $19,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report shows a cost of $16,000 per
space a few years ago.
The Development Services Director stated that San Jose had a 1999
cost estimate for $15,000 per space which ended up costing $34,000
per space by the time the structure was built four years later;
costs are difficult to estimate without construction documents.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the cost estimate was $16
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,11,"million in 2002-2003.
The Development Services Director responded that $10.5 was bonded
for the parking structure and $7.5 million was bonded for the
historic theater.
Councilmember deHaan stated the November 2004 estimate was $24. 7
million and now there was an estimate of $26.8 million.
The Development Services Director stated that the construction
contingency was gone; adding a 15% construction contingency was
requested for the historic theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $28 million would consume all
the dollars for the project, to which the Development Services
Director responded very close.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the project might have to be value
engineered.
The Development Services Director responded that there is no place
to value engineer the historic theater.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a recap of the Planning Board
conditions regarding 3:00 am late night screenings.
The Development Services Director stated that the two primary
conditions are: 1) the operator must submit an operation plan which
the Police Department and the City reviews for appropriateness, and
2) the Use Permit would be reviewed by the Planning Board (after a
year) to decide whether additional conditions are needed.
The Redevelopment Manager stated that the 3:00 am use is restricted
to 24 times per year in the bottom four screens.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there would only be first-
run movies at the late night screenings.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the requirement was part of the Development Agreement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be contract
Police overtime when the theater is in operation past midnight, to
which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Police Department would
be notified a week before the special event.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,12,"The Development Services Director responded the Police Department
would be notified a couple of weeks before the special event.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether special showings would be in
the bigger or smaller theater.
The Development Services Director responded special showings could
be a combination of both; the intent is to have all the big
blockbusters start in the bigger theater.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a caveat to review
the Use Permit after a year, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how often the Developer ran late
night movies.
The Developer responded that the new Harry Potter movie was being
released Thursday at midnight; Star Wars and Serenity ran at 12:01
a.m.; approximately six movies have been shown past midnight this
year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether lowering the number of late
night movies would be acceptable.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Planning Board had a very thorough
discussion on midnight showings; there should be flexibility.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was no Planning Board resolution
regarding cueing.
The Development Services Director stated she spoke to the Police
Chief regarding the matter and concluded that nobody believes
cueing would occur.
The City Attorney stated that there is a section in the Resolution
regarding cueing; there are five conditions on blockbuster releases
and special venues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be contract
overtime for cueing, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired why a Public Works and Police
Department review was requested.
The Development Services Director responded the Public Works review
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,13,"was requested because of street and sidewalk issues; the Police
Department review was requested for insight special requests would
be discussed among all department heads.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the zoning district allows up
to 60 feet with the granting of the Use Permit.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the parking structure is exempt.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether only the cineplex was being
discussed, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that comments at the Planning Board
meeting and tonight's meeting are no different the Planning Board
took diligence in reviewing the Municipal Code for the cineplex
height requirements and did a credible job in reviewing extending
hours past midnight; stated he has no problem as long as the hours
are monitored.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution upholding
the Planning Board's approval with a condition that there be a
monthly analysis of late-night screenings and a review after 12
events or a year, whichever comes first.
The Development Services Director stated that there would be a
master review after 12 events.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board would review the
matter, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes - Vice Mayor Gilmore, Councilmember
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Abstentions: Councilmember deHaan - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-526) Status of the Infrastructure Improvement Project/Plan,
including scope, issues, timelines and questions.
Counci lmember Daysog requested that the Council forward
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,14,"infrastructure plan ideas to the staff prior to the matter being on
the agenda in December ; suggested community oversight be
established; requested future discussions on how streets are
prioritized for crack sealing treatment.
Mayor Johnson stated she would not want to have the infrastructure
report delayed in order to review options; the Council should
review what other cities do; she was very disappointed when the
Council learned that the infrastructure spending was cut nearly
50%, which made making the reserve appear to be false; stated the
reserve is not false; deferred maintenance occurred; stated there
is crack sealing all over the City; a decision was made not to do
crack sealing; the Council needs more information on what is
prioritized and the affects of the decisions; a long catch-up game
is required due to the cuts.
Councilmember Daysog requested some level of discussion about an
oversight committee that would inform the Council on issues.
Mayor Johnson stated there should be a discussion on available
options and goals.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the infrastructure report would
be brought to the Council, to which the City Manager responded
December.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether park deterioration would be
included in the report.
The City Manager responded the report includes sidewalks, streets,
street tree planning, field maintenance, facility maintenance,
sewers, and storm drains.
(05-527) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she attended the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Conference in Oakland
last week; the main topic of conversation was affordable housing
there was a strong recognition that individuals are being priced
out of the Bay Area market. the 20-3 year old group stated housing
was a real problem; unfortunately the language at the conference
was harsh on both sides and was not a good coming together to
exchange ideas.
(05-528) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Chamber of Commerce
had a briefing on the Ninth Avenue project in conjunction with the
Port of Oakland for 3,500 to 4,000 homes; there is continual build
out on the other side of the Estuary the City is in litigation
which restricts fulfilling commitments expressing the City's
concerns regarding constraints are important.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,15,"Counci lmember Daysog stated that he previously requested a summary
report on Oakland developments that need to be reviewed; requested
a follow up to his request.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 12:37 a.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
15
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 1, 2005 - -6:05 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:05 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-511) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations
:
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and
Confidential Employees Association.
(05-512) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing litigation; Name
of case: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda,
et al.
(05-513) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and Management and Confidential
Employees Association, the Council gave instructions to labor
negotiators; regarding Existing litigation, the Council was briefed
by the City Attorney; regarding the City Attorney, the Council gave
instruction to the negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 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
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-01,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(
*05-514CC/05-049CIC Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission and Special Community Improvement
Commission meetings held on October 18, 2005. Approved.
(
*05-515CC/05-050CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly
Financial Report for the period ending September 30, 2005 and
approve the supplemental appropriations. Accepted.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
November 1, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council meeting at 7:49
p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(*05-534) Minutes of the Special City Council, Special Joint City
Council and Community Improvement Commission, and Regular City
Council Meetings held on November 1, 2005. Approved.
(*05-535 - ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,408,086.91.
(*05-536) Recommendation to approve the purchase of three marked
patrol vehicles from Film Vehicle Services in the amount of
$80,493. Accepted.
(*05-537) Recommendation to approve an agreement with Holland &
Knight, LLP in the amount of $96,000 for federal legislative
advocacy services. Accepted.
(*05-538) Resolution No. 13908, ""Approving Proposed Amendment to
the 1986 Measure B Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan.
""
Adopted.
(*05-539) - Resolution No. 13909, ""Establishing Annual Free All-Day -
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,2,"Parking, with a Three-Hour Maximum Per Car Per space, for the
Webster Street and the Park Street Business Districts on December
3, 10, and 17, 2005. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-540) - Michael John Torrey, Alameda, wished everyone a happy
thanksgiving.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-541) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission (2 vacancies) and Recreation
and Park Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Morris H. Trevithick to the Real
Estate/Land Development seat of the Economic Development Commission
and continued the Community at Large vacancy (EDC) and the
Recreation and Park Commission vacancy.
(05-542) Discussion of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a
participant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing the
feasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for lead
abatement education and services.
Mayor Johnson stated that Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker was present
to provide the Council with information on the matter.
Supervisor Lai-Bitker stated that Mark Allen, Alameda County Lead
Poisoning Prevention Program (ACLPPP) Board, was also available to
provide the Council with information ACLPPP has provided a great
value in preventing lead poisoning among children; government
jurisdictions have suffered from financial challenges and budget
reductions ; staff layoffs occurred during the current fiscal year ;
stated that there has not been a fee increase since the fee was
adopted in 1991; now is a good time to examine an increase. pre- -
1978 homes currently have a $10 assessment fee; stated ACLPPP would
pay for the cost of an election.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the cities of Oakland, Berkeley,
and Emeryville responded to the request to partially fund the
survey
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,3,"Supervisor Lai-Bitker responded that the City of Oakland would be
approving the request.
Mr. Allen stated that the City of Emeryville would address the
matter at its December 6 City Council meeting; the City of Berkeley
was having a preliminary discussion tonight.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the survey questions would
address only the lead abatement program.
Mr. Allen responded that the survey would provide a sense of what a
palatable fee would be; results would determine whether to seek a
two-thirds majority vote of the electorate or a simple majority of
the property owners involved in the fee payment; Proposition 218
has certain requirements on how the election should be run; the
property owners' vote would be weighted based on the number of
units owned.
Councilmember Daysog stated there were unrelated add on questions
regarding waste related issues when polls were conducted in the
past; City dollars should be spent for the lead abatement poll and
not for a candidate.
Mr. Allen stated that conducting a poll for a candidate would not
be appropriate for a public agency.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a list of the questions would be
available, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there was a short timeframe if the poll
results favor a 2006 General Election.
Supervisor Lai-Bitker stated the consultant intended to conduct the
poll in December the timeframe has been delayed; a mail-in - ballot
could be done in the spring.
Mr. Allen stated that conducting the poll was still a possibility
at the end of December; the process has taken some time; stated he
would inform the Council on the projected date.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned that the person
potentially running the poll was the political consultant for the
candidate he was running against.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) had
concerns about how the consultant selection process occurred and
was not happy with the process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,4,"Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,5,"contract; the County Auditor would monitor the money the data
would be provided to Alameda County and JPA Board of Directors.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned that information
on a specific voter, at a specific address, with a particular issue
could be used by a candidate; inquired who would own the data on an
individual.
Mr. Allen responded that the question would need to be raised with
County Counsel.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what safeguards are in place to
ensure that Larry Tramutola would not use the data for another
campaign and what would be done to ensure the data was available to
everyone.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Daysog's concern was valid;
inquired whether the data would be available to the four JPA
cities, to which Mr. Allen responded that he would assume SO.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the data should be available to
the general public because payment would be made by a public
entity; public availability should be a provision of the City's
participation in addition to only having lead abatement questions
in the survey.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether he was in conflict because he
was in a political race and discussing a political consultant.
The Assistant City Attorney responded that nothing raised tonight
would pose a conflict.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would also check with the Fair
Political Practice Commission on the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the questions are valid; proposed
safeguarding methods should be brought back to the Council.
Supervisor Lai-Bitker stated that a written reply would be provided
to the Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Berkeley was voting
tonight on the proposal to participate.
Mr. Allen responded that the matter was not an action item tonight.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the matter would be placed on the City
of Berkeley's agenda, to which Mr. Allen responded December 6.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,6,"Mayor Johnson inquired what would occur if one city did not agree
to participate, to which Mr. Allen responded that he did not know.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the requested reports should be
provided to the Council before the matter was on the agenda for
action.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether similar polling has been done
in the past.
Supervisor Lai-Bitker responded that she was not aware of any.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would assume that similar
polling would be done continually.
Supervisor Lai-Bitker stated that similar polling has been done for
Countywide issues.
Councilmember deHaan stated that some of the safeguards used in the
past could be put into the contract.
Councilmember Daysog stated that there was overall support for the
good work being done.
(05-543) Councilmember Daysog stated that he was concerned with
Bill Riley's comments which almost invited a terrorist attack in
San Francisco; public officials need to take a stand and write a
letter regarding possible implications.
(05-544) Mayor Johnson stated that the Council attended the
Bridgeside Shopping Center groundbreaking
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Nob Hill Foods was coming to
Alameda: construction has started; the property was being graded.
Mayor Johnson stated there have been a number of false rumors
regarding the Bridgeside Shopping Center over the past few months ;
the previous owner's lack of interest in developing the property in
a way the community desired was one of the complications the
project should be completed by Labor Day.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street Streetscape has been
completed; Park Street would be completed tomorrow.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Bridgeside Shopping Center
was one of the most positive projects in the City; he was on the
Economic Development Commission with Councilmember deHaan when the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,7,"site was considered a blight a local resident has expressed
concern with semi trucks parked overnight at Blanding Avenue ;
garbage, boxes, and shopping carts are left on the street the
intersection of Blanding Avenue and Broadway is dangerous ; efforts
should be made to spruce up the area and review traffic.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Oakland has a problem with a
growing street community near the Bridgeside Shopping Center and
should be notified that the situation is not tolerable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Port of Oakland has been
trying to correct the situation.
Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda and Oakland police should work
cooperatively on the situation.
Councilmember deHaan stated activities on Clement Avenue and Grand
Street should be given attention.
(05-545) Councilmember Daysog requested an update on the hiring
process of vacant department head positions.
(05-546) Mayor Johnson stated that Saturday's electronic recycling
was a great successi money is made on the event; suggested
increasing the event's scheduling to every six months.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:32 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
7
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 15, 2005- -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-529) - Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Executive Management Employees, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(05-530) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation -
Name of case: Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of
Alameda, et al.
(05-531) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property:
2900 Main Street Negotiating Parties : City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under Negotiation: Price and terms.
(05-532) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation: Name
of case : Mohlen and Skrinde V. City of Alameda. Not held.
(05-533) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City Council
meeting at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the closed session at 8:40 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding the Executive Management
Employees, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association, the Council
received a briefing from labor negotiators regarding Citizens for
a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda, et al, the Council
received a briefing from Legal Counsel; regarding Conference with
Real Property Negotiators, the Council received a briefing and no
action was taken; and regarding the City Attorney, the Council gave
direction.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,9,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:40 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
2
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - NOVEMBER 15, 2005 - - - 7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:41 p.m.
Commissioner deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Following discussion of the ERM-West Agreement [Paragraph no. 05- -
052], Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the consent calendar. .
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are
indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]
(*05-051) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting held on November 1, 2005. Approved.
(*05-052) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
enter into an agreement with ERM-West, Inc. in an amount not to
exceed $194,320 to evaluate PAH contamination on a portion of the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Property.
Joan Konrad, Alameda, submitted a letter; stated that she was
concerned with the Fleet Industrial Supply Center development ;
urged the Council to consider mixed use of the property.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the original testing was
considered inadequate.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated the Navy was willing to perform sampling which
was sufficient for the contemplated non-residential reuse.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether precluding any residential
use was a conservative approach, to which the Base Reuse and
Redevelopment Division Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether additional testing would
necessitate mitigation and cleanup for the contemplated residential
use.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded in the
affirmative; stated additional sampling would be performed to
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-15,11,"augment the testing performed by the Navy; the sampling would be
the first step in determining strategies and solutions.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether additional remediation was
needed for the present commercial use of the property and whether
the Navy was obligated for cleanup.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded the
Navy's responsibilities were concluded at the site; additional
cleanup was not required for commercial uses.
Commissioner deHaan inquired who performed and paid for the
testing, to which the Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager
responded the Navy.
Commissioner deHaan inquired why the City would pay the entire cost
and not have Catellus share in the expense.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded that
the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) has taken on the
obligation as the property owner; a range of land use options would
be available to pursue as a property owner.
Commissioner deHaan inquired who would pay for additional
remediation costs.
The Base Reuse and Redevelopment Division Manager responded the CIC
may decide to pay the costs or pass the costs on to a future
developer staff would bring the matter to the CIC for a decision.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
November 15, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-11-30,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND RECREATION AND PARK COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 30, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:23 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson; Commissioners Ingram,
Kahuanui, Ogden, Oliver and Reeves - 9.
Absent :
Vice Mayor Gilmore and Commissioner
Christine Johnson - 2.
(05-547) A Study Session was held to discuss: Commission
Achievements for 2004, Commission Goals for 2005, Park Bond
Projects, Park Master Plan, Cost Recovery, and Alameda Point
Facilities.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Recreation and Park Commission
November 30, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-11-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 6, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(05-552) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556]
was withdrawn from the Consent Calendar.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(05-553) Library Project Update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were any cherry cabinets in
the internal staff areas, to which the Project Manager responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson stated that cherry cabinets should be placed in areas
that are visible to the public; utilizing formica countertops in
other areas was a good way to save costs; inquired whether the
costs for the minor redesign items need to be negotiated or whether
the costs are in the contract.
The Project Manager responded the Architect is responsible for
construction administration; any changes are covered under
construction administration; the percentage of change orders
attributed to the designer would be reviewed with the City Attorney
at the end of the project.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether changes discussed tonight were
construction administration changes and whether the changes have
already been paid for, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether pushing off the masonry work
would result in any impact to the schedule, to which the Project
Manager responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Architect offered to pay
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,2,"for oversights.
The Project Manager responded that the Architect does not
voluntarily offer to pay recourse would be a claim on the
insurance policy.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the first claim could be for
the firewall, to which the Project Manager responded the firewall
and staircase could be potential claims.
Mayor Johnson stated that the project is moving along well; the
public is very impressed with the process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar with
the caveat of withdrawing the recommendation to appropriate
$142,000 in Urban Runoff Funds [paragraph no. 05-556] ; noted major
inroads have been made on the ferry service.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( * 05-554) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on November 15, 2005. Approved.
(*05-555) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,504,278.52
(05-556) Recommendation to appropriate $142,000 in Urban Runoff
Funds to repair public storm drainage facilities within the
Bridgeside Shopping Center and reimburse Regency Centers for
expenditures incurred. Withdrawn.
(*05-557) Recommendation to adopt the Ferry Short Range Transit
Plan. Accepted.
(*05-558) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Five Police Communications Center
Workstations. Accepted.
(*05-559) Recommendation to accept the Affordable Housing Ordinance
Annual Review. Accepted.
(*05-560) - Recommendation to accept the Public Art Ordinance Annual
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,3,"Review. Accepted.
(*05-561) Recommendation to accept Impact Fee Report for Police and
Fire services. Accepted.
(*05-562) Recommendation to accept the Annual Investment Report for
the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year. Accepted.
(*05-563) Recommendation to award Restaurant Concessionaire
Contract to Tom Genanekos, Owner of Jim's Coffee Shop, for
exclusive right to sell food and beverage service at the Chuck
Corica Golf Complex. Accepted.
(*05-564) Resolution No. 13910, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
from Sungard Pentamation, Bio-Key International and Omega Group
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount
of $307,804 for Pentamation Finance Plus and Community Plus
Software, Bio-Key Fire Records Management Software and Fireview
Software. "" Adopted.
( *05-564A) Resolution No. 13911, ""Authorizing the Purchase of
Storage Area Network System Using the State of California
Department of General Services, Procurement Division, Competitive
Bid Award. "" Adopted.
(*05-564B) Resolution No. 13912, ""Authorizing the Execution and
Delivery of a Master Equipment Lease-Purchase Agreement, an Escrow
Agreement and Separate Equipment Schedules with Respect to the
Acquisition, Purchase, Financing and Leasing of Certain Equipment
for the Public Benefit; Authorizing the Execution and Delivery of
Documents Required in Connection therewith; and Authorizing the
Taking of all Other Actions Necessary to the Consummation of the
Transactions Contemplated by this Resolution. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-565) Resolution No. 13913, ""Appointing Morris H. Trevithick as
a Member of the Economic Development Commission (Real Estate/Land
Development Seat) "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.
Trevithick with a certificate of appointment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,4,"Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Joint City
Council, Community Improvement Commission, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority Meeting at 8:03 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 9:10 p.m.
***
(05-566) Update on City's infrastructure investment and review of
options to increase funding for preventative maintenance of
infrastructure.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested that a comprehensive report be brought back
to the Council at mid-year.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the real property transfer
tax was adjusted every year for inflation, to which the Finance
Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated $5.40 per thousand would be $5.69 per
thousand if adjusted for inflation; the increase would equal
approximately $180,000.
Mayor Johnson stated that she received several calls on the matter
the Board of Realtors supports an increase in the tax but would
like to be involved in deciding the amount; the increase in home
prices pus an increased transfer tax above inflation rates.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $27 million was needed for
deferred maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded
in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated nothing in the presentation reduces the
shortfall in a good orderly manner making up the shortfall through
the transfer tax and lighting district assessments would be hard;
inquired whether the shortfall would continue to escalate and
deteriorate over time.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the
recommendation tonight was to get direction on crafting a long-term
strategy which would be folded into the ten-year model.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he did not see any cure-all, only
band-aids.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,5,"Mayor Johnson stated the shortfall needs to be handled in a more
strategic manner and needs to be in context with the ten-year
budget projection; the goal is to have a system in place where a
certain amount of infrastructure is taken care of each year tax
increases should not be considered except for the transfer tax; the
public has been very generous in supporting tax increases for the
library, schools and hospital; cuts [in infrastructure funding]
that have been made over the past five to seven years should not
happen again.
Councilmember Matarrese stated spending $27 million all at once
would not be possible even if the money was available; the idea of
increasing taxes is a long way off; the increase could be
approached through a public process; sidewalks are the most
critical assets that represent the biggest risk to health and
safety; the value of repairing sidewalks versus the value and
necessity of having the 25% reserve should be reviewed; 25% reserve
is an arbitrary figure; drawing down on the 25% reserve should be
considered; the budget should be reviewed; some items are under
budget because of department head vacancies; there should be an
analysis for using unspent budgeted money to fix critical items.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $2.8 million of repair
projects have been scheduled.
The Public Works Director responded the projects are not currently
scheduled because the money has not been appropriated; resurfacing
could be scheduled for the beginning of the next fiscal year
sidewalks could be scheduled the current fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese requested an analysis between
the
criticality of resurfacing a street versus fixing sidewalks.
Mayor Johnson stated that knowing how street and sidewalk
priorities are set based on finances is important ; a lot of
sidewalks need to be repaired throughout the City; inquired whether
there should be a focus on sidewalk repair and crack sealing [ for
streets] because of potential injuries and costs.
The Public Works Director responded that the total payment of
settlement claims and judgments ranged from a high of $37,000 to a
low of $10,000 during the last four years.
Mayor Johnson stated that attorney fees exceed the payouts.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether any claims were made
because the streets were in bad condition, to which the Public
Works Director responded that he was not aware of any.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,6,"Mayor Johnson stated that the new, flexible sidewalk material seems
to be working well; inquired what type of feedback has been
received.
The Public Works Director responded the feedback has been positive;
Redwood City has tried a new rubberized concrete product; he was
waiting for a report back from staff on the product.
Mayor Johnson stated replacing the sidewalks with the new product
saves money because less on-going maintenance and repair is needed
consideration should be given to drawing down on some of the
reserve to catch up on sidewalk repairs.
The City Manager stated that staff could project and identify
whether there would be an additional percentage above the 25%.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested going below 25% of the reserve,
using part of the $2.8 million [identified in the staff report] for
streets, and using the amount identified in the staff report for
streets from the reserve for sidewalks instead.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether different species of trees are
reviewed.
The Public Works Director responded a Tree Master Plan was
developed to address trees planted years ago which were not the
most desirable for long term.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that trees fall down through natural
attrition.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a plan that
identifies a tree's life expectancy, to which the Public Works
Director responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a list was available which
identifies trees with non-invasive roots.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative stated
standards for expanded planting strips and deep watering are being
reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Gibbons Drive would always have
Liquid Amber trees; sidewalk maintenance was greater in Alameda
than in other cities because of the value of large trees.
Councilmember deHaan stated that parameters need to be set for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,7,"drawing down on the reserves; inquired whether deferred maintenance
has grown experientially over the last four years.
The Public Works Director responded that unfunded estimates keep
growing.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the deferred maintenance growth
could be lessened by utilizing available dollars and General Fund
reserves.
Councilmember Daysog stated that first turning first to the
reserves was critical. the reserves have been built up by not
funding capital infrastructure maintenance; the build up was done
for a good reason because of the Base conversion; drawing down on
the reserves needs to be done prudently; half of the 25% reserve is
already designated, leaving the actual amount of the reserve at 8%
to 12%; suggested revisiting the Henry Gardner Plan; stated lease
revenue bonds were issued at Alameda Point in 1999 and were shifted
over to pay for infrastructure; there should be a way to issue
redevelopment bonds and shift budgetary dollars so that the capital
dollars could pay for improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether shifting of the budgetary dollars
could be done.
Councilmember Daysog responded that the matter could be explored
with caution; he is not sure about raising taxes; he is willing to
explore adjusting the property transfer tax for inflation; stated a
report on sources and uses of funds has been presented; requested a
detailed plan outlining the problems and timetables for paths,
sidewalks and streets; stated he would continue to push for broader
community involvement in the process; moving forward was important.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated sidewalks are needed on the
beltline side of Ralph Appezzato Parkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Board of Realtors would like to
discuss the transfer tax with staff.
The City Manager stated that an election would need to be held
because taxes are involved; stated that she would be happy to meet
with the Board of Realtors.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there is a broad range in the
amount of transfer tax in other cities; the City of Dublin's
transfer tax is $1.10 per thousand and the City of Oakland's
transfer tax is $16.10 per thousand.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,8,"The Public Works Director stated that the average transfer tax for
Charter cities is $9.47.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the last two or three years could
be unique; anticipated numbers might not be realized.
Councilmember Matarrese stated reviewing the current budget is
important; money found should be spent on [infrastructure] projects
that would provide benefit.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the current budget could be reviewed to
make adjustments.
The City Manager responded that the Council could approve the staff
recommendation regarding current funds so that streets and
sidewalks can be identified and the bid award process could be
initiated; staff would review the impacts of drawing down on the
reserves, continue to review the budget to identify any unallocated
funds or savings, and identify per year costs for ten and twenty
year scenarios in conjunction with the ten-year financial
projection.
Mayor Johnson stated that departments should not be concerned that
budget cuts would be made; contingency funds would be reviewed.
The City Manager stated that acknowledging and appropriating
additional revenues should also be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a six-month run may not be
reflective and was not a linear spending rate; the risk of taking
the money needs to be balanced against the risk of allowing further
deterioration.
Mayor Johnson stated that the money could always be reallocated if
necessary.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter would come back at the mid-
year review and decisions would be made then; there should be an
on-going viable program to ensure that maintenance would not be
deferred in hard times; a certain percentage of funds could be
established as a standing rate in the budget processi determining
how projects will be completed with existing funds and what will be
done if other funds become available is an important segment.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to 1) receive an analysis on the scenarios of
drawing down below the 25% level of reserves, 2) review the current
budget with regard to under budgeted areas that could be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,9,"redirected, 3) review possible new sources of revenue, and 4)
provide a report on the process of exploring an adjustment to the
transfer tax.
Mayor Johnson stated there has been a lot of discussion on streets,
sidewalks, trees, and sewers; there is significant deferred
maintenance in the parks the parks and recreation facilities are
very valuable parts of the community; the parks are being addressed
in the staff recommendation
Councilmember deHaan requested that the motion be amended to
include reviewing the other assessment districts and the
establishment of landscaping and lighting districts.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like the motion to
include an analysis of the Henry Gardner Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want to go into more debt
unless it was necessary.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Henry Gardner Plan was a
separate issue.
Mayor Johnson stated that staff should not spend a lot of time
exploring the matter; suggested discussing whether debt was
something the Council would like to review as a solution to the
deferred maintenance when the item was brought back.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reviewing the matter in an
Off-Agenda Report would be satisfactory to Councilmember Daysog.
Councilmember Daysog responded an Off-Agenda Report seems to be the
same as his request for analysis.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Daysog; stated
that determining how much time would be spent on the matter should
be determined; that he does not understand the Plan completely and
would not be able to vote on the matter tonight.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he was requesting an analysis of
the Plan.
Mayor Johnson requested a brief Off-Agenda Report describing the
Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would mend the motion to include
an Off-Agenda - Report on the Plan piling debt on top of a deficit
of deferred maintenance was not a priority for him.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,10,"Mayor Johnson stated that she did not want staff to spend a lot of
time on the matter.
Councilmember Daysog stated that staff should spend as much time as
necessary to do a thorough job.
Mayor Johnson stated that the starting threshold could be
identifying the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the City Clerk repeat the
motion.
The City Clerk stated that Councilmember Matarrese moved approval
of the staff recommendation with direction to: 1) receive an
analysis on the scenarios of drawing down below the 25% level of
reserves, 2) review the current budget with regard to under
budgeted areas that could be redirected, 3) review possible new
sources of revenue, 4) provide a report on the process of exploring
an adjustment to the transfer tax, and 5) provide an Off-Agenda
Report on the Henry Gardner Plan.
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion be amended to include
reviewing other assessment districts and the establishment of
landscaping and lighting districts as other sources of revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the amended motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(05-567) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated a plan is before the
Planning Board to expand South Shore; acknowledged the help and
responsiveness of Doug Garrison, Dorene Soto and Bruce Knopf ;
stated everyone involved was very concerned about receiving a
comprehensive, complete report; urged the Council to support the
efforts to make informed decisions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates receiving the
feedback: the Planning Department and Development Services
Department staff is top notch.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-568 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated streaming video is available
on- - line; other cities have placed City Council meetings on the web
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,11,"for delayed viewing i requested investigating how the process is
done.
(05-569) Councilmember deHaan stated concerns over parking spaces
arose recently; at a Planning Board meeting, Development Services
indicated an in depth parking analysis would be completed for the
Park Street and Webster Street business areas; that he would like
the study to address buyout of parking space requirements; $6500 is
the current price; costs are closer to $20,000 per parking space;
potential owners should not be discouraged from establishing retail
and being able to buy out, however the study should review costs,
including ways to handle costs and defer costs; $6500 is not a good
price anymore; once a lot has been established, the area should not
be used for infill at a later time; recently a parking area was
bought out in order to allow construction; the policy should be
reviewed in the parking study.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan is suggesting
the in lieu fee be raised.
Councilmember deHaan responded the fee may need to be higher and
might need to be able to be deferred as well; further stated if an
established parking lot has been used to meet requirements, the
owners should not be able to buy themselves out to establish retail
at the site and put the burden back on the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired where said case occurred, to which
Councilmember deHaan responded the Knowles property.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be reviewed in the larger
context of parking structures for the downtown areas having half
of every lot dedicated to parking is not the best downtown
planning; parking in the downtown areas should be reviewed more
strategically. money going towards parking structures could be
emphasized, rather than requiring parking on every lot.
(05-570) Mayor Johnson stated that the weather was great for the
tree lighting.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the Dancing Trees were great.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the ice skating rink was well
received.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the lower lights are lit; suggested
that the lights go on at dark.
(05-571) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Master Plan was one
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,12,"of the key issues at the Joint City Council and Recreation and Park
Commission meeting he was glad to see some of the major elements
tackled.
(05-572) Councilmember Daysog stated that a resident asked him
about the price of fire inspections for homes and the amount of
revenue that has been generated over the last five years; requested
background data on the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 10:26 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
12
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6 , 2005 - - - 6:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-053) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property
Fleet Industrial Supply Center Negotiating party: Community
Improvement Commission and ProLogis, Inc. i Under negotiation Price
and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission directed staff to
prepare a timeline sheet and a summary of off-agenda issues.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 6, 2005 - -6:00 p.m.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:25 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-548) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney
(05-549) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Mohlen & Skrinde V. City of Alameda.
(05-550) Conference with Labor Negotiator - Agency Negotiator:
Karen Willis; Employee Organization: Executive Management
Employees.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding City Attorney, the
Council discussed the matter; regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council obtained a briefing from Legal Counsel
;
regarding Executive Management Employees, the Council obtained a
briefing and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 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
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 6 , 2006- - -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore led the Pledge of
Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers/ Commissioners/ Authority
Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Transmittal of City of
Alameda Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [paragraph no. 05-
551CC/056CIC] was moved to the Regular Agenda.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese moved
approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*05-054CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meeting of November 15, 2005 Approved.
(*05-055CIC) Recommendation to approve the Amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract amount
by $68,200 to provide additional architectural and construction
administration services for the Civic Center parking garage.
Accepted.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City
Council Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the Special Joint
Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
***
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
1
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,16,"AGENDA ITEM
(05-551CC/05-056CIC) Transmittal of City of Alameda Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2005,
Auditor's report on agreed upon procedures on compliance with
Vehicle Code section 40200.3 Parking Citation Processing, agreed
upon Procedures Report on compliance with the Proposition 111 2004-
05 Appropriations Limit Increment, Police and Fire Retirement
System Pension Plans 1079 and 1082 Audit Report for Fiscal Year
ended June 30, 2005, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Grant
Programs Financial Statements for year ending June 30, 2005,
Community Improvement Commission basic component unit financial
statements for the year ended June 30, 2005, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority basic component unit financial statements
for the year ended June 30, 2005.
The City Auditor introduced the City's External Auditor, Maria
Giannell, Maze & Associates.
The External Auditor gave a presentation summarizing the financial
statements and management recommendations
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the Finds, Forfeits
and Miscellaneous Revenues.
The External Auditor stated that the items were the aggregation of
ten years of data on the statement of revenues, expenditures and
changes in the fund balance.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that there was a small, steady increase
from 1996 through 2004 and a large increase in 2005.
The External Auditor stated other revenue was received in the Fleet
Industrial Supply Center (FISC) fund that was not Finds and
Forfeitures.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the Community Services and Capital
Outlay have declined since 1996.
ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why
general expenditures dropped for Development and Public Works since
2003, to which the External Auditor responded the drop occurred
because of budget cuts.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that Public Safety expenditures
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
2
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,17,"increased from over $23 million in 1996 to over $40 million in
2005.
 ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the External Auditor observed similar trends in other cities, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Public Safety expenditures
included pension costs.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated total
expenditures in 1996 were $78 million versus $118 million in 2005;
the growth was not substantial.
louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired why
there was a major increase in the General Government and Payments
to Other Agencies expenditure.
The External Auditor responded budget reorganization occurred
several years back within the general government which resulted in
expenditures almost doubling from 1996 to 1999.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Daysog inquired whether
a statistical section adjusting for inflation could be prepared.
The External Auditor responded that a separate report could be
provided.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether more Sewer Fund revenue was
collected than spent and where the total amount of the Sewer Fund
was noted.
The External Auditor responded the Sewer Fund is considered an
Enterprise Fund and was accounted for on a full-accrual basis. the
Cash Flow Statements address revenues collected and expended.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether $16 million was the total
amount in the Sewer Fund, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why sewer maintenance has been
deferred when spending has been less than revenues collected.
The External Auditor responded that sewer maintenance might have
been deferred because of limited staff and not because of cash.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
3
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,18,"Mayor/Chair stated that the City's population is lower now than in
1996.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the 2005 debt service was lower than in 1996, to which the External
Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authorit Member Gilmore stated there have
been discussions on how much bonds cost the City; everything that
has been accomplished has been done without increasing the total
debt service.
The External Auditor stated management has been good; the last ten
years have not been easy; more is being done with less.
Mayor/Chair Johnson questioned the figures for the Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority original staff salaries versus actual
salaries.
The External Auditor stated Government Accounting Standards Board
(GASB) requires the original, adopted budgeted amount be presented
for major funds.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the staff fringe benefits were
included in the salaries, to which the External Auditor responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chain Johnson inquired why there was a large difference
between the amount budgeted and the amount spent for office
expenditures; stated the original budget for professional and
administrative services was reduced significantly expenditures
were almost double the original budgeted amount; more accuracy is
needed.
The External Auditor responded the increase in professional and
administrative services was due to an unexpected EDA grant; stated
budget controls and accuracy are far better in the 2004-05 year.
louncilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
there were other improvements or further decay from the previous
audit.
The External Auditor stated there has not been further decay;
capital assets are very difficult to control and have improved.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
4
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,19,"Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan inquired whether
the improvement could be attributed to the Finance Director, to
which the External Auditor responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Interim City Manager also
contributed to the improvement.
The External Auditor stated staff tried very hard not to have
adjustments.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan stated that the
External Auditor's findings confirm the Council's beliefs.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why there was such a fluctuation in
administrative expenses in the Police and Fire Pension Plans;
stated the benefits and refunds remain about the same.
The External Auditor responded the 1999-2000 increase was the cost
of the GASB 25 and 27 implementation; the 2004-2005 increase was
the cost of actuarial studies and implementing new accounting
standards.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money cannot be transferred from fund to
fund without Council approval but can be transferred within funds ;
inquired whether one department charging another department was
considered an inter-fund transfer.
The External Auditor responded in the negative; stated one
department charging another department is not considered moving
budgeted resources.
Mayor Johnson requested money budgeted for one department and
allocated to another department be highlighted in the next budget.
Vice  ayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore inquired whether
the ten-year financial plan figures would be scarier for the Police
and Fire unfunded pension benefit obligation.
The External Auditor responded in the affirmative; stated the
obligation outpaces the funding.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner/Authority Member Gilmore stated the
challenge would be funding the Plan without hitting other City
services too much.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
5
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,20,"Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member Matarrese stated there
was a similar finding last year; inquired what was being done to
prevent the problem from reoccurring.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the City Manager could review and
report back to the Council/Commissioners/Authority Members on the
matter.
The External Auditor stated the other recommendation was regarding
the employees reporting directing to the City Council which are
outside the normal reporting realm; suggested that the City's
elected Auditor provide oversight to the City Clerk, City Attorney
and City Manager departments to ensure checks and balances.
Mayor Johnson stated spending issues were raised last year;
significant changes were made under the direction of the Interim
City Manager in the last six months of the fiscal year; stated that
she has confidence in the new City Manager; the new Finance
Director worked very closely with the City Manager on addressing
previous issues; the City Manager and Finance Director should work
with the City Auditor on an oversight proposal; stated having a
system in place was a good idea.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority Member deHaan stated the
louncil/Commissioners/Authority Members have a responsibility to
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
6
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,21,"ensure that internal finances are controlled.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Matarrese stated having
the City Auditor involved would be beneficial; inquired whether
there was a way to increase the City Auditor's role.
Mayor/Chair Johnson noted the External Auditor does not need to be
involved.
The City Auditor stated that the City was in reasonably good shape
and improvement was being made in controlling costs; the ten-year
study would enlighten the Council on tough issues; the Finance
Director was in the unenviable position of being at the same level
as other department heads; suggested that he meet with the Finance
Director periodically to address issues.
The City Manager stated that she would be happy to work with the
City Auditor; she believes that the Finance Director was
comfortable with identifying issues with other departments;
discussions with the City Auditor could be more routine.
The City Auditor stated that there was no need for a formal policy.
Mayor Johnson stated that the discussion was not out of concern;
there have been considerable changes since the City Manager joined
the City; thanked everyone who worked on the audits; stated that
she looks forward to the ten-year projection.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember deHaan moved approval
of accepting the submitted reports.
Councilmember/Commissioner/AuthorityMember Daysog seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:09 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
7
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-06,22,"The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Community
8
Improvement Commission, and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
December 6, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the
Quarterly Sales Tax Report [paragraph no. 05-579], , the
recommendation to accept the Annual Review of fees [paragraph no.
05-582], and the Resolution to Apply for a Bicycle Transportation
Account Grant [paragraph no. 05-585] were removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from
voting on the Special Joint City Council and Recreation and Park
Commission Meeting.
[
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *05-577) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Recreation
and Park Commission Meeting held on November 30, 2005, and the
Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on December 6, 2005.
Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Special
Joint City Council and Recreation and Park Commission Meeting. ]
( *05-578) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,152,381.22.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,2,"(05-579) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending September 30, 2005, for sales transactions in
the second calendar quarter of 2005.
Councilmember deHaan stated that there has been a drastic 16.5%
reduction in tax revenue generation; requested a forecast for the
upcoming quarters.
The Finance Director stated that the sales tax consultant advised
her that sales tax receipts were not reported for the
transportation and business-to-business categories during the third
quarter the non-reporting occurred throughout the State; sales tax
receipts should be reported in the next quarterly report for
businesses headquartered in the southeast Gulf area; the report
should be received the first part of January.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was an 80% reduction in the
commercial production, an overall 21.8% reduction in business-to
business, and retail dropped 16.5% inquired what attributed to the
16.5% reduction in retail.
The Finance Director stated that the reported geographic areas show
downturns on Park Street and Webster Street as well as areas south
of Lincoln Avenue; the decline could be attributed to construction
activity as well as businesses coming in and out; stated that one,
specific business was not inordinately impacted; impacts were
across the board.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the sales tax for the area
north of Lincoln Avenue dropped immensely because of the economy.
The Finance Director stated that she did not know why there was a
decline in the area; under-reporting could have occurred.
Mayor Johnson requested more information on under-reporting.
The Finance Director stated that reports were late in coming to
California for some businesses such as a multi-state business
headquartered in Mississippi.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the report would be available, to which
the Finance Director responded the first part of January.
Mayor Johnson requested an update when the final figures are
received from the State.
The Finance Director stated that the figures would be included in
the next quarterly report.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,3,"Mayor Johnson requested that the update be provided in January.
Councilmember deHaan stated that a trend could be developing which
could have a major impact on the overall budget and general funds
;
inquired whether adjustments could be made to put the money into
the right quarter.
The Finance Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the forecast.
The Finance Director responded that the forecast looks on target
but would need to be reviewed after the next quarterly report.
Councilmember Daysog requested background data on comparing second
quarter 1999 to second 2004.
The Finance Director stated data is available.
Mayor Johnson requested an analysis be provided every six months ;
stated that businesses have suffered during the construction
process; the goal of economic development is to generate more
revenue; the Bay Area experienced a 2.3% growth and there was a
4.5% growth Statewide; Alameda is not keeping up; redevelopment
projects should help increase revenue in Alameda.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would not be surprised that
construction along Webster Street and Park Street influenced the
downturn.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the analysis be provided every
quarter with an eye on the forecast; stated that he could not
pinpoint any particular reason for the decline; a decline appeared
in areas that were not under construction.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(*05-580) - Recommendation to appropriate in the General Fund the
2005-2006 Citizen's Option for Public Safety Program (COPS AB 3229)
Grant Funding to supplement frontline police services. Accepted.
(*05-581) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$386,969.05 to Libramation, Inc. for a Materials Security Inventory
System including five years of maintenance for the Alameda Free
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,4,"The City Manager stated that the correction would be made to the
report.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with a correction to list the Work/Live Citywide Development Fee
(CDF) under commercial [non-residential building space] instead of
residential.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-583) Recommendation to appropriate $49,000 from San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Grant and
$21,930 in Urban Runoff Funds for removal of existing dock and
placement of riprap adjacent to Bridgeside Center Project, No. P. W.
10-05-01. Accepted.
(*05-584) Recommendation to appropriate $40,000 in Measure B Funds,
adopt plans and specifications, and award a Contract in the amount
of $87,000, including contingency, to Richard Heaps Electric, Inc.,
for Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs Project, No. P.W. 06-05-
05. Accepted.
(05-585) Resolution No. 13914, ""Applying for a Bicycle
Transportation Account Grant to Enhance the North Approach to the
Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge, Appropriating Measure B Funds as
Local Match, and Authorizing the Public Works Director to Execute
all Necessary Grant Documents. Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the bicycle route is the primary
force in applying for the grant; inquired whether approved, solid
plans are in place.
The Public Works Director responded detailed plans are not in
place; an illustration has been developed to provide a cost
estimate; time would be spent on design after the grant is
received.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the timing for applying for
the grant, to which the Public Works Director responded by the end
of the month.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether specifics could be worked out
later.
The Public Works Director responded that some granting agencies
allow more flexibility than others; changing basic items such as
limits and width might not be possible.
Mayor Johnson stated the bike path is important; many children ride
bikes from Bay Farm Island to east end schools; inquired whether a
more detailed grant application would place the City in a better
position to receive the grant.
The Public Works Director responded that he did not think more
detail was needed; the agency wants to have a basic description of
the project and cost estimate; stated he would look into the
matter; an explanation of the benefits is required.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for
other projects, what is the scope of the project, and whether the
public has been involved.
The Public Works Director stated that the Public Works Department
does not have the money to pay for staff time until a project is
identified he assured a concerned resident that the loading and
unloading zones at Lincoln Middle School would be preserved and
that staff would meet with residents to seek input once the grant
is received and there is a preliminary design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the improvement was part of the
Master Bike Plan, to which the Public Works Director responded
improvements in the area are included in the Master Bike Plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Lincoln Middle School
Safe Routes to School project had funding.
The Public Works Director responded the project received a grant ;
the same process is being followed for the proposed project whereby
the City applied for the grant and then met with the school and the
residents.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the two projects would
dovetail together.
The Public Works Director responded that the two projects would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,6,"blend together and build on each other; the Safe Routes to School
project would come to the Council early next year; construction
should start in the summer of 2006; the proposed project would
follow.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the public process would be
the same, to which the Public Works Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that it is important that the two
projects dovetail together and marry in the proper way.
The Public Works Director ensured that the two projects would work
together.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the grant could be used for
another project.
The Public Works Director responded that the grant is not portable;
changes can be made based on constraints discovered while working
on the design.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there were any other proposed
bike projects that would require grants.
The Public Works Director responded that the proposed project is
one of the higher rated projects in the Bike Master Plan.
Mayor Johnson stated that the proposed project was determined to be
a top priority based upon the Bike Master Plan; requested that a
process be established to allow the Council to prioritize projects
which could receive grant funding; stated the area is dangerous and
the proposed improvements are important.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with the
caveat that the project be dovetailed together with the Safe Routes
to School project.
The Public Works Director stated that the projects would have
different schedules the proposed project would fall behind the
Safe Routes to School project.
Councilmember deHaan stated the problem needs to be cured in trying
to get the children to school safely, mitigating on-going problems
at Lincoln Middle School, and getting the community involved in
both projects so that the decision has continuity.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there were discussions regarding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,7,"field space being taken away at Lincoln Middle School.
The Public Works Director responded the School District discussed
the matter, not the City.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City received the grant; the Safe
Routes to School project was very controversial i it would take a
lot to convince her that there is a need to take open space away
from schools; she was concerned about how much grant money was
spent in considering whether field space should be taken away or
not.
The Public Works Director stated that consideration for taking away
open space was never envisioned and that staff did not discuss the
matter in depth.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review the
financial portion of the Safe Routes to School grant at a later
date.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether both projects would be
seamlessly executed when the grant was received, to which the
Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(*05-586) - Resolution No. 19315, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the
Salary Range for the Classification of Plan Check Engineer. ""
Adopted.
(*05-586A) Resolution No. 13916, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing the Salary Ranges for the Classifications of
Development Services Division Manager, Golf Services Manager, Golf
Course Maintenance Superintendent, and Building Official. Adopted.
(*05-586B) Resolution No. 13917, ""Amending Exhibit A-1 of the
Executive Management Compensation Plan Established by Council
Resolution No. 13545 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 13626 and
13689, to Establish a Five-Day Workweek Alternative with
Corresponding Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Assistant
City Manager and Planning and Building Director. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(05-587 ) Recommendation to authorize a letter of welcome to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,8,"Asuchio, El Salvador Civic Leaders.
Stewart Chen, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) , stated
that the Sister City workgroup was established a year ago to
explore and expand Alameda's involvement in a global friendship
movement; the community and St. Philip Neri's parish are interested
in establishing a relationship with Asuchio, El Salvador stated
that an invitation to visit is the first step in formalizing a
friendship.
Rob Bonta, SSHRB, stated the key to a successful relationship is
having existing energy and support within the community; the goal
is to establish a non-profit organization that is run by community
members.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for their hard work.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Chen and Mr. Bonta for bringing
the matter forward; stated traveling to Asuchio was rewarding to
him; members in the audience have made trips to El Salvador ; there
is a good nucleus in gaining something for Alameda as well as
Asuchio.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that he
likes the idea of the City of Alameda having relations with a more
needy city.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( 05-588 - ) Consideration of a proposal for the City of Alameda, as a
participant in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention
Program, to partially fund a survey to be used in analyzing the
feasibility of increasing the County Service Area fee for lead
abatement education and services.
Mayor Johnson stated that representatives from the Joint Powers
Authority (JPA) were present to answer any questions.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a better explanation regarding
whether there was any legal problem in agreeing to ask only
questions that directly relate to determining the viability of an
increase in the fee to fund the Lead Program; stated the thrust of
the last Council discussion was to only pay if the survey was
restricted to lead-related questions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,9,"Mayor Johnson agreed that the Council was looking for a commitment
on the matter.
Mark Allen, Alameda County Lead Poisoning Prevention Program Board
stated the will of the Authority was to establish the requirement
in the Contract.
Mayor Johnson requested Mr. Allen to describe which Alameda
programs would be facing funding reductions and which programs
would be funded by the potential fee increase.
Mr. Allen stated cuts have already been implemented which would
have a negative impact on Alameda: free risk assessments have been
cut; the assessments were provided to the Housing Authority and
Development Services Department for free over the past five years
but now the City has to budget for the service; additional services
at risk are: technical assistance to property owners with an
identified lead poisoned child, free home renovation classes,
reduction in the number of lead safe painting kits, and elimination
of a one-day lead safe work practice workshop stated the survey
would indicate what fee the property owners or the general
electorate would be willing to bear; a $10 to $15 increase might
provide the cities with risk assessments.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what amount was being requested as
Alameda's share.
Mr. Allen responded $5,000; stated the City of Berkeley's share was
$10,000 and the City of Oakland's share was $14,9991 Alameda County
and SEIU Local 616 contributed $11,000 each; the City of Emeryville
contributed $3,000.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the consultant has been
selected, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the County would go forward
with the survey without the City's contribution.
Mr. Allen responded not necessarily; further discussion would be
needed if one of the cities chose not to contribute; stated a
Contract has not been signed.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would approve the Contract, to which Mr.
Allen responded the Board of Directors.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was concern regarding the use of
the data and whether the data would be public information.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,10,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the data could be used for anything
if the data was public information.
Mr. Allen stated that some of the work product could be kept
confidential ; the final product would be public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the County is a public entity and
the data should be public.
Mayor Johnson stated the Contract would identify ownership.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have expressed
concern regarding ownership.
Mr. Allen responded other cities have agreed with the concerns
raised by Alameda.
The City Attorney noted that the memorandum from the County stated
that information collected would be subject to the Public Records
Act.
Mayor Johnson stated the Authority would be subject to the Public
Records Request Act but not the consultants.
The City Attorney stated the data should be publicly available.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the data could be provided to
the participants.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there was concern that a consultant
could ask a broad spectrum of questions, gain personal advantage in
running a County survey, and use the data for something else; a
condition should be that the data be published along with the
report.
Mayor Johnson stated that some information has been provided on the
election; inquired whether the Authority would pay for the
election.
Mr. Allen responded that the election cost would be paid by the
Authority as a straight charge from the fee.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the proposed assessment
did not pass, to which Mr. Allen responded the cost would come out
of the Authority's budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the election cost estimate.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,11,"Mr. Allen responded the survey would determine the type of
election; stated that Oakland paid $125,000 to conduct a Fire
Prevention Assessment District election; the election covered
25,000 households and was a mail ballot to the property owners ; a
countywide election would cost approximately $1 per voter.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many households would be included in an
election covering the existing households only, to which Mr. Allen
responded considerably more than 25,000.
Mayor Johnson stated the cost is big for the Authority; inquired
whether anything would prevent the Authority from legally paying
for the election.
Mr. Allen responded in the negative; stated the survey would
determine whether there is interest in entertaining a more in-depth
discussion and strategy.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the report provided is very thin
on JPA's budget problem; funding for supplementary services has
been lost; services are cut when funding is lost; remaining funding
is used to provide core services people in Alameda feel overtaxed;
more information should be given.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Daysog wanted more
information on the cuts.
Councilmember Daysog responded that he would like more information
on what happened to precipitate the need for money.
Mr. Allen stated that the County has gone through three budget
processes identifying problems.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what voice Alameda would have after
the survey has been conducted.
Mayor Johnson responded there are four member cities have voting
representatives; the County has non-voting representatives; people
in the County area are not part of the program.
Mr. Allen stated that property owners in the County of Alameda':
unincorporated area do not receive any of the services ; the JPA
passes the budget for the program on an annual basis.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a way to satisfy
Councilmember Daysog's concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to know what
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,12,"precipitated the need for the requested funding and what type of
cuts have been made to deal with the current situation.
Mr. Allen stated that the $10 fee has not increased since 1992;
operating costs have increased; the fee was new and did not include
cost escalation; $19 million has been leveraged from the Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funding into the four County
Service Area (CSA) cities; last year was the first year that the
program did not have a full year of HUD funding six out of
thirteen rounds of grants have been received from the Office of
Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control; program income has been
generated from of no-interest loans to property owners. payment is
made when the property is transferred; the loans need to be
recycled for the same type of activity services were carried for
three years on program income; six people were laid off last year
because all program income was used; efforts are being made to
identify whether there is a mechanism to correct the fact that
there has not been an increase in base funding since 1992; the
budget has been reduced from $5 million to $2.5 million over three
years; audits are preformed every year; the program has won
National awards.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the loss of HUD funding has
dropped the annual budget by $3 million; the policy question is
whether the residents should pick up the loss of the HUD funding.
Mr. Allen stated that the policy question is whether or not
property owners should have a say in whether they value the service
enough to increase the fee; questioned how the level of service can
be maintained when the service has exceeded $10 per year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether programs that have been funded
through HUD could not be funded because of funding source
limitations.
Mr. Allen responded yes and no; the program cuts from HUD took
place in one year; a $3 million HUD grant was received the next
year; the CSA fee is restricted to property owner services HUD
dollars are used for project remediation and tenant education;
State funding is received from the Department of Health Services
for case management of lead poisoned children; one fund does not
fund other categories.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the increase in the CSA fee would
pay for more assessments, not remediation and health treatment;
whether there would be a problem in bringing the matter back in
January, to which Mr. Allen responded in the affirmative to both
questions.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,13,"Counci lmember Daysog stated that he understands the argument that
the 2005 $10 fee does not buy the same services as in 1992 and that
there were some shifts in HUD priorities resulting in loss of
dollars; taxes are an overwhelming concern; he is not convinced
that there is a strong argument for residents backfilling the
shortfall instead of the Board making cuts that others make when
funding is lost.
Mr. Allen stated the survey would ask the people whether they feel
the service is valuable enough to consider placing an increase on
the ballot; the survey is to test the waters and see if people feel
the service is worth the contribution; every other government has
raised fees since 1992.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the request is whether the City
should put $5,000 into asking a question to determine whether or
not increasing the assessment fee should go on the ballot ; the
program is valuable enough to invest $5,000.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating $5,000 for the
survey with the conditions that the JPA Board use an open bidding
process [or provide an explanation if there are impediments in
using the bid process]. and that the data and final report be a
matter of public record.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the open
bidding process would cause problems, to which Mr. Allen responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Contract has not come to the Board;
the process has been very different there would be no problem
under normal circumstances but there could be a problem in this
instance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a written explanation could be
provided regarding why the Board could not go out for an open
public bid before the Contract goes to the Board for approval.
Mayor Johnson responded that the Board has not been involved in any
process to select a consultant.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated her preference would be to request that
the process go out to open bid if the Board has not gone through a
process to either select a contractor or approve a Contract; she
would also like to know if there is some impediment in doing so.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,14,"Counci lmember Matarrese concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; stated
$5,000 is a small amount to pay to ask the question.
Counci lmember Matarrese amended the motion to include Vice Mayor
Gilmore's caveat [that the process go to bid or the JPA provide a
written explanation if there is an impediment with using the open
bid process]
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is safeguarding itself with
the financial review process.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote - Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes Councilmember Daysog - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(05-589) louncilmember deHaan stated that the opening of the new
Alameda Towne Centre Safeway store was very successful; sale
estimates are between $40-50 million for the proposed Target;
Target states that 85% of all transactions would be coming from
Alameda which is the leakage the City is trying to capture; close
to a million $38 to $50 transactions would need to occur per year
to achieve $40 million in sales; Target states that the store is a
one-stop shop; transportation and corridor impacts could be derived
from the one-stop shop concept ; past studies indicate only 65% of
the transactions would be recaptured; Alamedans would need to make
over 900,000 transactions per year which means that every household
would have approximately 30 to 31 transactions per year questioned
whether said number of transactions is reasonable; stated a
consultant was used in the past everyone needs to understand the
dynamics of what is happening; Target knows exactly what is
happening but does not always provide information to the public; an
independent consultant is needed to establish some of the facts and
figures; every household in Alameda would have to spend close to
$1200 per year for a 85% recovery; the money would not be new money
but would be drawn from elsewhere.
Mayor Johnson stated that figures show that Alameda residents spend
millions of dollars at Target; new money would be residents
spending millions of dollars in Alameda rather than elsewhere if
the project goes forward.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,15,"Councilmember deHaan stated that $4.3 to $5.6 million is spent at
Target stores; the community is questioning the impacts; the
Council needs to ensure that the community's concerns and questions
are answered with an impartial consultant.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter would need to be placed on an
agenda in order for Council to give direction.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
Council in terms of an analysis and could be placed on an agenda if
Council action is needed.
Councilmember Daysog stated multiplying 900,000 trips against the
$50 transaction comes within the envelope that Target expects in
terms of store sales; the Board of Equalization's website provides
a breakdown on the typical per capita for sales of general
merchandise, which is $1200.
(05-590) Mayor Johnson stated that a lot has been accomplished in
the past year; wished everyone a happy holiday and happy New Year.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:10 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
15
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -5:31 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(05-573) ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
( 05-574) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
Mayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Regular City Council
meeting at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the Closed Session at 9:15 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel;
regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the Council gave
direction to negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:10 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
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2005-12-20,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 20, 2005- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:37 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call -
Present Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember/Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *05-575CC/05-057CIC) Minutes of the Special Community
Improvement Commission meeting and the Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission and Alameda and Reuse
Redevelopment Authority meeting held on December 6, 2005. Approved.
(*05-576CC/05-058CIC) Recommendation to accept the Community
Improvement Commission Annual Report and authorize transmittal to
the State Controller's Office and City Council. Accepted.
AGENDA ITEMS
None
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:38 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Community Improvement Commission
December 20, 2005",CityCouncil/2005-12-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JANUARY 3, 2006- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-001) - Proclamation declaring January as Volunteer Blood Donor
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ruby Liu,
Account Manager, American Red Cross Blood Services.
Ms. Liu thanked the Council for the proclamation and support;
stated 12 drives were held in Alameda in 2005; 600 units of blood
were collected.
Michael J. Torrey, Alameda, thanked the Council for issuing the
proclamation; stated that he is still advocating for a voluntary
Blood Donor Year.
(06-002) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
louncilmember deHaan inquired whether the furniture, fixtures and
equipment (FF&E) were selected and ordered.
The Project Manager responded that some of the $3.5 million FF&E
budget item is in the base Contract; the procurement process should
start in February; bids are due back in April the staff furniture
will be available at the beginning of September and the public area
furniture will be available at the end of September; the interior
designer recommended delaying the procurement process because
selected furniture might no longer be available if ordered too
early; the IT procurement process will go out after the furniture
procurement.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,2,"CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 06-004], the recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction [paragraph no. 06-005], and the recommendation to
approve an increase for the Construction Contract with Ghilotti
Brothers, inc. [paragraph no. 06-006 were removed from
the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-003) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on December 20, 2005. Approved.
(06-004) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,904,675.88.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was impressed with the progress staff
has made in purchasing within Alameda; requested staff to check on
the possibility of purchasing tires in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why there are a number of negative
amounts on the last page of the register.
The Finance Director responded the negative amounts indicate that a
credit memo was issued or an offset occurred to a payment.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why Dang & Trachuk had a $16,000
negative on the check register.
The City Attorney responded the negative $16,000 was for the
Alameda Belt Line litigation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that departments are paying attention
to where money is being spent; reporting has shown a marked
improvement.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of ratifying the bills in the
amount of $2,904,675.88.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,3,"(06-005) Recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street Renaissance Project, No.
P.W. 07-02-07.
Councilmember deHaan requested the item be addressed together with
the recommendation to approve an increase for the Construction
Contract with Ghilotti Brothers [paragraph no. 06-006].
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street Renaissance Project
involved five blocks; the project was very successful; the vast
majority of Webster Street has improved; the Park Street
Streetscape Project involves two blocks; a lot of the work still
needs to be done; inquired how much funding was provided by the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC).
The Public Works Director responded each project received
approximately $1 million.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the remainder of the funding came
from various other sources such as redevelopment and Alameda Power
and Telecom (AP&T)
The Public Works Director stated that AP&T paid for all of the Park
Street joint trenching for electrical and cable wiring some
Measure B money covered the Webster Street sidewalk repair.
Councilmember deHaan stated the money was well spent; he has
concerns about the next phase; inquired whether more dollars were
in the cue now.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative. stated a
$700,000 federal grant would go to the Park Street Streetscape
Project specifically; he is working with the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) and Development Services Department to determine
how the money will be spent; PSBA would like the money to go toward
more street trees and lights.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the MTC funding needs to go
toward transportation-oriented activities.
The Public Works Director responded that the funding is flexible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether matching funds need to be
obtained for the federal grant, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the federal grant would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,4,"finish the Park Street project.
The Public Works Director responded that the grant should finish
the segment from Webb Avenue to Lincoln Avenue; joint trenching has
been done. continuing down to least Alameda Avenue would be ideal.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the projected budget for
continuing the work.
The Public Works Director responded that the project is going
through the Community Improvement Project process; the limits of
the $700,000 grant would be reviewed along with additional
contributions from City funds.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the same type of trenching would be
needed for the block south of Central Avenue, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the lights could be installed
without trenching, to which the Public Works Director responded in
the negative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Webster Street project involved
five blocks for a cost of approximately $2 million; the Park Street
project involved two blocks for about the same amount of money;
inquired how the Park Street project was different.
The Public Works Director responded that Park Street has private
basements extending into the public right-of-way; Webster Street
does not have basements under the sidewalks the work on Park
Street was more expensive because trenching needed to be done under
the streets for utilities; Park Street was also completely
resurfaced from curb to curb.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether CalTrans money was available
for the resurfacing on Webster Street.
The Public Works Director responded that Webster Street was
resurfaced by CalTrans three years ago and did not need to be
resurfaced: PSBA wanted to have flush transit plazas, which are
more expensive; complex drainage issues also increased costs.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the same problems could occur
with the remainder of the Park Street project.
The Public Works Director responded the same problems could occur
if underground basements are in the extended phase.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,5,"Mayor Johnson stated that the City will need to address the
underground basement issue at some point some of the building
owners are using the sidewalk as the basement roof; requesting the
owners to put ceilings in the underground basements seems
reasonable.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations
[accept the work of Golden Bay (paragraph no. 06-005) and approve
an increase for the Construction Contract with Ghilotti Brothers
(paragraph no. 06-006)]. .
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-006) Recommendation to approve an increase for the
Construction Contract with Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. by the amount of
$45,000 using Alameda Power & Telecom funds for the Park Street
Streetscape and Town Center project, No. P.W. 10-02-13. Approved.
[Note: See recommendation to accept the work of Golden Bay
Construction [paragraph no. 06-005 ] for discussion and motion. ]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(
06-007)
Resolution No. 13918, ""Commending Community Development
Manager Carol Beaver for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the resolution to the Community
Development Manager.
The Community Development Manager thanked the Council for the
resolution; stated that she has enjoyed working with wonderful
people to build a strong, supportive community.
Mayor Johnson stated that the community would continue to benefit
from all of the programs developed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Community Development Manager's hard
work would be evident for a long time; stated that the Community
Development Manager has always been cheerful and upbeat.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Community Development Manager
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,6,"for a faithful and cheerful job performance; stated the Community
Development Manager's accomplishments are helping the City to do
what is right.
Councilmember deHaan thanked the Community Development Manager for
her dedication and effort in working on the Base closure and
Alameda College Career Center.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Community Development Manager
was behind Ed Dankworth, Lois Workman, and Ken Warner in getting
Alameda to think about new ideas since the mid-1990's the
Community Development Manager's departure from the City will result
in a tremendous void.
(06-008) Public Hearing to consider Amendment No. 1 to Fiscal Year
2005-2006 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plan,
approving reallocation of funds, and authorizing the City Manager
to execute related agreements with sub-grantees.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a $6,000 increase is proposed for
fair housing services Sentinel Fair Housing's (SFH) efforts were
questioned during the Harbor Island Apartment mass eviction;
inquired what additional services would be provided with the $6,000
increase.
The Community Development Manager responded the proposal includes a
$5,996 allocation to SFH; SFH requested the additional amount as
part of the grant; the increase in funds would provide the City
with additional technical assistance in meeting Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) obligations; fair housing regulations have
changed for people with disabilities and language barriers.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how SFH's scope of work was being
measured.
The Community Development Manager responded that traditionally
SFH's goals are exceeded; SFH would continue to meet contractual
obligations; technical assistance would be added to the scope of
work; more meetings would be scheduled to brief staff on community
questions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that goals are not set appropriately
when consistently exceeded the 25% increase is hefty; he would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,7,"clearly defined.
The Community Development Manager responded a substantial quarterly
report is submitted which documents every case that SFH has taken
under advisement; the scope of work is very clearly spelled out ;
the details have not been worked out for the proposed increase in
funds but can be provided once the scope of work has been
finalized.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Contract details should be provided
to the Council to ensure that the City is getting its money' S
worth; disappointing service was provided to the Harbor Island
Apartment tenants; the Council thought that SFH could have done
more to help.
The Community Development Manager stated the issue would be part of
the discussion when the scope of work is refined.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether SFH's previous Contract included
providing aid to the City with the Harbor Island tenants, and
whether SFH was remiss in doing so.
The Community Development Manager responded that the Contract would
be reviewed and information would be provided to Council; staff
feels that SFH was in compliance in terms of the number of people
contacted; stated that communication could have been better.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that caution should be exercised in
establishing criteria by the number of contacts made; emphasis
should be on the outcome of the contact; the money is not well
spent if the contacts are not helping people.
The Community Development Manager stated that more information
would be provided to the Council.
Mayor Johnson requested that staff provide a sample of SFH's
quarterly reports.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the proposed funding would cover
for the Webster Neighborhood Improvement Project.
The Community Improvement Manager responded the proposed funding
would cover Phase I, which includes the streetlights, tree
planting, curb cuts, striping, bus shelters, signage, and possibly
an engineering consulting contract for the pedestrian corridor
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,8,"design.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether money is given out as loans or
grants for substantial rehabilitation, to which the Community
Development Manager responded loans.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services and Human
Relations Board for putting the amendment together.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-009 - ) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated that she was concerned
about the economic impacts of the proposed Target the neighborhood
will be negatively impacted; informed decisions cannot be made
without reviewing the economic aspects of the project; 75% of
Alameda's retail leakage comes from high-end specialty stores, not
discount stores; increased street resurfacing and criminal elements
need to be addressed.
(06-010) Dr. Arthur Lipow, Alameda Public Affairs Forum, stated
that he was disturbed that there were no barriers at the boat
launch at the end Grand Street; the Acting Police Chief does not
consider the site to be a hazard; a doctor died at the site, as
well as two others; inquired why something has not been done to
correct the situation.
(06-011) Jon Spangler, Alameda, requested that the Council
consider joining the Kyoto USA movement in voluntarily adopting
the Kyoto protocols; the City already is a leader on energy
policies through Alameda Power and Telecom and waste management
programs stated that he has great reservations about the proposed
Target Harsh Development and Target need to reach out to the
community to ensure that appropriate contributions are made as was
done by Catellus.
(06-012) ) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated she was concerned about
how the proposed Target would impact the small merchants on Park
Street and Webster Street the Safeway and Trader Joe parking area
is a mess; the Grand Street boat slip gives an illusion that
Oakland is very close; the street should be barricaded to avoid
accidents; eight cars have driven into the estuary; three deaths
have occurred.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,9,"COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-013) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Recreation and Park Commission and Social Services Human
Relations Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Michael B. Cooper for appointment to the
Recreation and Park Commission and Dora J. Dome to the Social
Services and Human Relations Board.
(06-014) - Vice Mayor Gilmore congratulated the Public Works
Department staff for doing a terrific job in maintaining the storm
drains; stated that Alameda did not face flooding situations in the
wake of the recent storms.
06-015) ouncilmember Daysog stated that members of the Encinal
High School Alumni Association inquired into the possibility of
renaming a west-end street to honor Willie Stargel he would like
to review the history of naming Tinker Avenue and the possibility
of renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargel Boulevard; Mr. Stargel
grew up near Tinker Avenue.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City's street naming policy should be
reviewed and updated.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Encinal High School Alumni
Association also had concerns about how the road and streets in the
Bayport development were named.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City experienced minor incidences
with the storms a three-hour power outage occurred; stated Third
Street and Poggie Avenue reappear with different names in the
Bayport development.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be corrected.
ouncilmember deHaan stated Willie Stargel spent most of his youth
in west-end projects; consideration should be given to renaming
Tinker Avenue or Mosley Avenue.
(06-016 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated that the Del Monte property
was under the oversight of the Planning Board for three years and
was scheduled to come back to various committees and boards but has
noti 550 housing units are scheduled for the northern waterfront
area along with substantial retail operations; he would like to
have a status report provided shortly.
(06-017) Councilmember Matarrese stated that his heart goes out to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,10,"the family of Dr. Atari; an investigation is being conducted
necessary action would be taken upon conclusion of the
investigation; inquired when the report would be provided.
The City Manager responded up to four weeks.
(06-018) Councilmember Matarrese requested concurrence from the
Council to provide direction to gather Council policies and have a
central repository established for public access.
The City Clerk stated that she has Council policies dating back to
1998; pre-1998 policies are indexed by topic and are difficult to
find.
Mayor Johnson suggested setting up a method for recording and
maintenance of Council policies.
The City Clerk stated that a method has been established for future
policies.
(06-019) Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda's Marine Corp
unit has been called for deployment in Iraq; requested that the
Council meeting be adjourned with the City's wishes for a safe
return; he is disturbed that fresh troops are being sent out
instead of pulling troops back in from the middle east; the Council
needs to express support.
(06-020) Councilmember Matarrese stated that tonight is the
Assistant City Manager's last meeting; the Assistant City Manager
is leaving to become the City Manager of Astoria, Oregon; stated he
will miss working with the Assistant City Manager.
The Assistant City Manager stated that he was leaving with mixed
emotions; Alameda has been a great place to work for the last three
years.
(06-021) Mayor Johnson stated benefit and pay issues have come to
her attention from the City Auditor Citywide policies are lacking;
she is hesitant to request staff to take on significant projects
that are not related to outside projects; pay and benefit policies
should be reviewed and formalized; the matter may need to be
handled by an outside service money could be allocated if needed;
requested that the matter be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to review the $250 car
allowance for transit users; an alternative should be established
for public transit users.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-01-03,11,"Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter should be brought
back as an agenda item.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; requested
that the City Manager provide recommendations regarding the use of
outside services and what should be done.
Councilmember deHaan stated consistency needs to be established;
issues are looked at harder during the budget processi employment
groups have inequities; efforts are being made to standardize the
employment groups; other cities' practices should be reviewed.
(06-022) - Councilmember deHaan stated the Navy League recognized
the Marine Corp unit's deployment to Iraq; concurred with
Councilmember Matarrese regarding support to the troops and their
families.
Mayor Johnson stated that approximately 1500 soldiers are being
deployed.
(06-023) Councilmember deHaan thanked the Assistant City Manager
for his open, fair, and honest approach.
Mayor Johnson stated that tonight is also the Assistant to the City
Manager's last meeting; congratulated the Assistant City Manager
and Assistant to the City Manager stated the Assistant to the City
Manager was leaving to become the Assistant City Manager in Windsor
after eight years with Alameda.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-024) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 9:03 p.m. in a moment of silence for the
Alameda Marine Corp unit deployed to Iraq.
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
January 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-01-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING
WEDNESDAY - - - FEBRUARY 1, 2006 - - - 7:01 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:24 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Authority Members Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(06-052)
Recommendation to approve a Joint Operating Agreement for
Various Alameda Point Collaborative Housing Projects and a First
Amendment and Assignment Agreement for Spirit of Hope I Project at
Alameda Point. Accepted.
Vice layor/Authority Member Gilmore moved approval of the staff
recommendation.
Councilmember/Authority Member deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority
February 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SATURDAY - -FEBRUARY 4, 2006- -4:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and
Mayor Johnson - 3.
Absent :
Councilmembers Daysog and Gilmore - 2.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-053) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation:
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced the Council directed that temporary
barricades be placed at the foot of Grand Street, northbound,
pending investigation and report.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 5:05 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
February 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:57 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-058) - Proclamation declaring January 30, 2006 through April 4,
2006 as A Season for Nonviolence.
Mayor Johnson read the proclamation and requested staff to forward
the proclamation to the New Parent Support Group and Alameda
Collaborative for Children, Youth & Families.
(06-059) Presentation by the Port of Oakland on the draft 20-year
Master Plan for the Oakland Airport.
Steve Grossman, Director of Aviation, provided a brief report on
the Master Plan study, and Doug Mansel, Project Manager, provided a
Power Point presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked Mr. Grossman and Mr. Mansel for the
presentation; recognized Dave Needle with the Airport Operations
Committee; expressed thanks to the Port Executive Director and the
Board of Commissioners for working with the community stated she
was impressed with the projected cargo traffic reductions.
Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, thanked the Port of
Oakland for including the community in the process.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Port of Oakland and members of
the community who participated in the work sessions; stated he
appreciates throttling back the noisiest operations; he is
concerned with the accident prone general aviation which ends up
over Bay Farm Island and the east end of the Island; he hopes that
Alameda's and San Leandro's weight exceeds the other nine Bay Area
counties regarding the full 2025 projection; he does not want to
sacrifice Alameda's safety or comfort for others convenience.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,2,"Councilmember Daysog stated that the City should be proud of the
knowledgeable residents involved with the Airport Operating
Committee; the progress has been positive.
Mayor Johnson stated that resident knowledge has been extensive.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when regional dialogue would commence
regarding the other runways.
Mr. Grossman responded preliminary discussions have been initiated
with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and Regional
Airport Planning Committee; the work should start within the year
and continue to be a multi-year process.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's voice is important throughout
the process.
(06-060) Library project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether branch library hours would cover the
Main Library hours during the closure.
The Acting Library Director stated covering the hours was not
feasible because extra staff was needed for the tagging process;
the public would be advised on the closure through a major press
release along with a notice from the schools; staff could review
the matter again.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether collections would be tagged on the
weekends.
The Acting Library Director responded collections would be tagged
six days a week at the Main Library; the branch library collections
would be tagged on the existing closed days [Friday and Sunday].
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the branch library collections would
be tagged in two days.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated the
branch library tagging will not start at this time the two-week
process would concentrate on the Main Library.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether high school students or
temporary staffing could help with the tagging process.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,3,"process is quiet involved.
Councilmember Daysog stated a plan seems to be in place for the
transition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she understands the desire to keep
one of the branch libraries open full time; the branch libraries
are small and would not accommodate the number of people who use
the interim Main Library; she is not sure of the additional benefit
in opening a branch library for seven days.
The Acting Library Director stated that extended hours are being
planned for the branch libraries during the closure in October.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what are the closure days, to
which the Acting Library Director responded March 6 through March
19.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the closure could be in
the summer.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated
summer closure would not provide enough time for tagging and would
impact the summer reading programs.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much time is needed for the tagging.
The Acting Library Director responded that two-thirds to three-
quarters would be completed during the closure.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the process would be completed, to
which the Acting Library Director responded hopefully October.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the school schedule would be
affected.
The Acting Library Director responded in the negative; stated Donna
Fletcher, Alameda Unified School District, advised her that the
proposed closure dates are the best time to perform the tagging
the School District is helping to get the word out through a
newsletter.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review the possibility of keeping
one of the branch libraries open during the two-week closure of the
Main Library if there is a huge outcry over closure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether future rains would affect the
progress of the project, other than brickwork.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,4,"schedule and within budget.
***
Councilmember deHaan excused himself from the City Council Meeting
at 9:49 p.m. due to a pinched nerve.
***
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the bills for ratification [paragraph
no. 06-061] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1.
]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( *06-062) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on January 17, 2006, and Special Joint City Council and
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting held on February
1, 2006. Approved.
(06-063) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,501,850.82.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Finance Director for the new check
register format.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of ratifying the bills in
the amount of $5,501,850.82.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]
(*06-064) Resolution No. 13924, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,5,"Attorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
(*06-065) Resolution No. 13925, ""Appointing an Engineer and an
Attorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . ""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-066)
Ordinance No. 2946, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II
(Administration) Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and
Prescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. "" Finally
passed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Film Commission would help to
manage the impacts on the neighborhoods and increase business
opportunities.
Councilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]
(06-067) Resolution No. 13926, ""Supporting Equal Opportunity
Access to Community Sports Facilities and Community Sponsored
Recreation Programs. Adopted.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief report on
Assembly Bill 2404.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Alameda programs are in
full compliance, to which the Acting Recreation and Parks Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that adoption of the Resolution
would ensure that requirements are met for both City-owned and non-
City owned programs and facilities; he is please with the efforts
made in advance of the Resolution.
Mayor Johnson requested that the actual policy to be adopted by the
Recreation and Park Commission on February 9 be brought back to the
Council for review; stated that the Resolution is vague; the policy
needs to be consistent with the Resolution and State law; thanked
staff for being responsive; stated she is impressed with the plans
to move forward with renovation and improvements of three fields.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the Resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,6,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the resolution provides non- -
discriminatory access to fields and times; certain groups have been
given the least favorite fields and times in the past the
Resolution would ensure a balance in times and field locations.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates former Councilmember
Barbara Kerr originally bringing the matter to the Council's
attention.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember deHaan - 1. ]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(Communications from Council)
(06-068) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Economic Development Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Lorre Zuppan for appointment to the
Economic Development Commission.
(06-069) Discussion regarding a resolution calling upon steps to
withdraw our Reservists, Coast Guard Units and members of the
California National Guard troops from Iraq.
Joseph Woodard, Alameda, quoted 2005 Nobel Prize Playwright Harold
Pinter urged a return of the troops.
Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda Peace Network, stated that Alameda needs the
California National Guard back.
Susan Galleymore, Alameda, stated the War has caused a lot of
horror and destruction; urged bringing the National Guard home.
Mark Irons, Alameda, urged the Council to place the resolution on
the next agenda for discussion.
Sallyanne Monti, Alameda, stated the death rate of the National
Guard is 35% higher than other units of service; urged return of
the National Guard.
Dorothy Kakimoto, Alameda, stated that the War is robbing social
services ; urged the return of the National Guard.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,7,"Kathryn Neale Manalo, Alameda Chapter, Network of Spiritual
Progressives, urged the return of the National Guard.
Pat Flores, Alameda, urged the Council to speak out by passing the
resolution.
Noel W. Folsom, Alameda, commended Councilmember Matarrese for
bringing the matter to public attention; urged the Council to adopt
the resolution.
Carl Helpern, Alameda, stated that he was in support of the
resolution; the California National Guard was not intended to be an
army operational force and should be brought home.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Alameda is the appropriate
place to address the issue and vindicates the controversial vote
that occurred four years; there is a difference between a no-cost
conveyance and hundreds of millions of dollars of clean up that
cannot be done; the City needs to beg for money from the Corps of
Engineers to repair the seawalli Alameda's Marine unit was
deployed; the National Guard and Coast Guard deployment directly
impact Alameda; requested the Council to place the resolution on
the next City Council agenda.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the resolution language could
be discussed if the Council votes to place the matter on the next
agenda, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to hear comments
on the wording of the resolution.
Mayor Johnson stated the Councilmembers could make comments at this
time; public comment would be heard when the resolution is brought
back; stated that a Senate Hearing addressed concerns with the
State levels of the National Guard; the percentage of National
Guard troops in Iraq was approximately 40% and is currently down to
approximately 30%; the National Guard has a two-year time limit for
activation; she supports the resolution with regard to the National
Guard; she does not believe that California is prepared to deal
with a natural disaster; stated she is a little less comfortable
with locally dealing with the troop levels, although spending money
in Iraq has an impact on local governments ; stated that two
resolutions could be proposed.
Councilmember Daysog stated that Alameda is a middle-of-the-road - -
type City; Alameda's comments carries weight on issues of global
significance words should chosen carefully and wisely; the public
can be engaged to receive more input on the terms of US policy in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,8,"Iraq; kindling should not be thrown on the fire that is already in
Washington, D.C. and Sacramento; there is an opportunity to
responsibility discuss the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the eloquence
of tonight's speakers; urged that the matter be placed on an agenda
for action; stated she can see the arguments for bringing the
California National Guard home; she is comfortable in supporting
the decision; she is less comfortable about inserting herself in
the national debate regarding levels of troops, even though
personally she is not in favor of having troops in Iraq; she would
look forward to having a discussion on the matter and receiving
more information from experts before rendering an opinion; two
resolutions may be appropriate.
Councilmember Daysog stated several resolutions could be
considered.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved to place the matter on the next City
Council agenda.
Mayor Johnson stated that there was some discussion on Assembly
Member Hancock's resolution regarding the authority of the Governor
and Federal Legislation; she would like to have more information on
how the issue relates to the National Guard.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that there is some urgency regarding
the matter he would like to have Alameda's voice heard in getting
Assembly Member Hancock's resolution passed; the deficit impacting
Alameda is a certainty just like an earthquake on the Hayward
fault; the deficit impact has already visited Alameda on the Base.
The City Manager requested clarification on the concept of two
resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not advocate a
combination; he would prefer a simple, direct approach.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would prefer to pursue a more
simple resolution which has no reference to situations in
Washington, D.C. or Sacramento, but which addresses a statement of
belief from Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that any Councilmember could bring ideas for
discussion; other draft resolutions could be part of the Council
packet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,9,"Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of placing the matter on the next
agenda.
Counci Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: 4 by consensus/Absent: Councilmember
deHaan - 1.
(06-070) Councilmember Matarrese stated a number of signs
throughout the City may violate the sign ordinance; requested staff
to investigate the matter.
The City Manager inquired whether the signs were temporary.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that some of the signs are more
permanent than temporary.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-071) There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the meeting at 10:43 p.m. in a moment of silence for Former Mayor
Chuck Corica and Coretta Scott King.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-054) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-055) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee : City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Alameda City Employees
Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association, the Council
obtained briefing and gave instructions to labor negotiators;
regarding the City Attorney, the Council discussed the City
Attorney's employment Contract.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 7, 2006- -7:27 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Resolution Amending
Resolution No. 98-78 [paragraph no. 06-002CIC] was removed from the
Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of
the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember/Commissione: Matarrese seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted
are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.
]
( *06-056CC/06-001CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on December 20, 2005.
Approved.
(06-002CIC) Resolution No. 06-139, ""Amending Resolution No. 98-78
Regarding Commission Bylaws Article II, Section 12 Regarding the
Powers and Authority of the General Counsel. Adopted; and
(06-002A CIC) Recommendation to Approve Policy Regarding Hiring
Procedures for Special Legal Counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the changes made to the Bylaws were fine
the policy and resolution have inconsistencies; the policy states
that General Counsel is authorized spend up to $35,000 per matter;
the resolution states that matters estimated to cost more than
$35,000 must be brought to the CIC.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the policy question was that a
matter should still come to the CIC if the matter costs $25,000 as
opposed to $35,000.
Chair Johnson responded in the negative; stated the policy states
that the General Counsel is authorized to spend up to $35,000 on
any matter and then come to the CIC, whether the matter costs
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,12,"$200,000 or $35,000; the resolution is correct in stating that the
matter should be brought to the CIC at the earliest convenience if
the estimated costs exceeds $35,0000.
The General Counsel stated the policy was adopted by the Council on
September 6; noted Page 2, Item #3 states ""Comply with the
Community Improvement Commission Policy regarding Procedures for
Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.
Chair Johnson stated that the policy and resolution state two
different things ARRA may have the same inconsistency the intent
was that matters be brought to the CIC if estimated outside counsel
legal fees are more than $35,000.
Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission would approve the
resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore and Chair Johnson concurred with Commissioner
deHaan.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the ground rule should be that the
matter comes to the appropriate governing body if the estimate is
over $35,000 but General Counsel can spend up to $35,000 per matter
to initiate the process.
Chair Johnson stated that bullet point 1 [General Counsel is
authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriate project budget without prior CIC approval] should be
omitted; the correction should be made to the ARRA policy also.
Commissioner deHaan moved adoption of the resolution and approval
of the policy with modification to omit bullet point 1 [General
Counsel is authorized by CIC to spend up to $35,000 per matter from
appropriated project budget without prior CIC approval].
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-057CC/06-003CIC) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Financial
Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments, including General
Fund reserve policy and infrastructure review.
The Finance Director gave a brief presentation.
The Public Works Director gave a brief update on the December 6,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,13,"2005 allocation and the infrastructure plans.
Mayor Johnson requested that a street resurfacing schedule be
provided.
Councilmember deHaan requested that a sidewalk resurfacing schedule
be provided.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the field renovation included
sprinkler systems in addition to drainage, to which the Public
Works Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that certain trees, such as eucalyptus trees,
grow rapidly and pruning of the trees is costly; suggested
reviewing the possibility of replacing trees that are too expensive
to maintain.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether project timelines would be
brought back to the Council, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that residents have to pay an $85
permit fee to repair a sidewalk square; inquired whether the fee
could be lowered to encourage homeowners to take care of the
replacement.
The Public Works Director responded both property owner and City
responsibilities are identified when sidewalk inspections are
performed; homeowners are given the option of using the City's
contractor; in which case, the City would cover the encroachment
permit.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what was the outcome of the rubberized
sidewalk experiment, and whether the City was contemplating having
rubberized sidewalks.
The Public Works Director responded that the feedback has been
positive; currently, the City is not doing any rubberized
sidewalks the Council would receive a proposal for installing
rubberized sidewalks; a $90,000 grant would be applied to
sidewalks; the intent is to piggyback on the City of Oakland's
Contract for rubberized sidewalks.
Councilmember Daysog stated a level of complexity exists in terms
of the timing of available dollars; oversight is needed; there are
two types of budgeting issues: 1) the two-year budgeting process
and midyear adjustments, and 2) dedicating dollars when the reserve
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,14,"is above the 20% level.
The Public Works Director stated that the City Manager and Finance
Director have assurances that the $2 million is available and is
enough to keep the remaining General Reserve funds at 20%.
The City Manager stated that the recalculation of the General Fund
Reserve is reviewed every year at mid-year to ensure that the
reserve is based on the actuals.
The Fire Chief provided a brief presentation on the $400,000 for
fire station planning and acquisition.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether new sites are being
considered which would adjoin existing residential areas.
The Fire Chief responded all West End fire stations should be
reviewed to determine the best way to proceed over the long term.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed study would be
directed to the West End fire stations, to which the Fire Chief
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether procurement was being
considered for West End fire stations.
The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the priority is
Fire Station 3.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $400,000 was for the
study and acquisition, to which the Fire Chief responded in the
affirmative.
The City Treasurer stated reducing the reserve levels is a serious
matter; he is concerned with how the money will be used; a good use
would be investing the money in City assets; reserves should be
spent on projects that result in a lollar-for-dollar benefit; the
Fire Department issues should be addressed during the normal
budgeting process the proposal reduced the reserves from 25% to
20%; stated that he understood that reducing the reserves to 20%
was temporary.
The City Auditor stated that money from the reserves should go
toward identifiable projects; he takes exception to using reserve
funds for a study; questioned why a planning decision needs to be
outsourced; stated staff should make decisions; paying for a study
is not a prudent way to spend down the reserves.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,15,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council is not changing the
reserve limit policy but is requesting to pull money out of the
reserves today because the infrastructure is accruing debt faster
than the reserves are accruing benefit; every dollar should be tied
to an infrastructure repair; spending money on Fire Station 3 also
qualifies because the station is a crumbling asset; money spent on
a study is not appropriate; suggested looking for funding in the
ARRA planning budget.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding not
changing the reserve limit policy; stated money is being allocated
to pay for needed projects.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has known about fire
station issues; there is no immediate urgency except for Fire
Station 3; the next budget process can review appropriating money
for the study; there are deeper problems if $20,000 cannot be found
in the normal budget processi the reserve reduction should be
considered a one-time occurrence; the goal will be to continue to
build reserves back up to 25%.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the reserves were built up by not
investing in the infrastructure over the years; now is the time to
invest back into the sidewalks and streets; inquired what the
affect will be on the undesignated reserves.
The Finance Director responded that there are no undesignated
reserves the policy sets a 25% target for economic uncertainties;
some portions of the reserves have been loaned to other funds and
the cash is not available; $6 million out of $18 million has been
loaned out; the remaining funds would allow sufficient time to make
decisions on how to proceed.
The City Treasurer stated that $380,000 remains in the pool for
planning and acquisition costs after the $20,000 for the study
questioned why $380,000 should be taken out of reserves today to
put the money into an interest-bearing account for future
acquisition.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the funds should be held in abeyance
[designated reserve] for Fire Station 3; money would not be
allocated [designated] from the reserves for a study, only for
acquisition and/or repair.
Councilmember deHaan stated impact funding was set aside; inquired
whether the impact funding was earmarked for studies and how the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,16,"balance of the fiscal year looked.
The Finance Director responded that the year should end with
revenues exceeding expenditures based on what is being done today.
Councilmember deHaan stated there will always be adjustments.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that some of the money allocated in
December would be invested in field repair; a turf management plan
was discussed earlier in the year; the turf management plan should
be accelerated to ensure repairs are not lost after a year of play
or a season of rain; the plan should be accelerated to protect the
investment.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated that the turf
management plan has been initiated; solid plans should be in place
within the next month.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the process could be
accelerated to have plan in place before investments are made, to
which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether most of the $1.6 million would go to
contractors.
The Public Works Director responded some money would cover costs
for design, inspection and contract administration; staff levels
cannot cover the physical work; sidewalk inspections are intensive.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much of the $1.6 million would toward
design and contract management.
The Public Works Director responded that design is generally 10% of
the construction cost; contract administration and inspections can
be 3-5%.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the design, construction
management and inspections would be handled by contractors, to
which the Public Works Director responded the tasks would be
handled by existing staff.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the costs need to be covered
if existing staff is used.
The Public Works Director responded the Public Works Engineering
division functions like an engineering firm; 80% of the engineering
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,17,"budget comes from revenues.
Mayor Johnson stated department budgets should not be supplemented
by drawing down on reserves; the $1.6 million should be spent on
hard construction projects; 16% of the $1.6 million would go to the
Public Works Department and is an extraordinary expenditure to
invest in the City.
The City Manager stated that the process could be reviewed; other
projects would need to be contracted out staff can review the cost
of design and contract management in terms of allocation to obtain
economy of scale.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether additional money would be
needed to backfill the other projects.
Councilmember deHaan stated that staff should determine the best
resources for the projects; there is an economy of scale to be
derived which might not be a full 10% for design; however, the job
has to be inspected.
Mayor Johnson stated that part of Council direction could be to
have the City Manager review costs with the Public Works
Department; she hopes that the costs could be below 16%; the City
should not pay flat fees and end up supplementing the Public Works
budget.
The City Manager stated some City staff would be dedicated to the
projects; more definitive costs will be provided.
Mayor Johnson requested that the budget for the $1.6 million
appropriation come back to Council for review.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of allocating the funds from
the [General Fund] reserve [$1.6 million for infrastructure
projects and $400,000 to designated reserve for Fire Station3
acquisition] and accepting the staff report as written with the
following conditions 1) that the City Manager work with the Public
Works Department and Fire Department to break down associated costs
to execute the outlined tasks [ infrastructure and Fire Station 3
projects] including reviewing economy of scale, 2) review ways to
protect the renovations and improvements, such as the turf
management plan, and 3) that the policy is to maintain a 25%
General Fund target level [but allow for a temporary reduction to
20%].
Mayor Johnson requested the motion be clarified for the $400,000
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-07,18,"item.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the motion is that the $400,000
would be for acquisition [of Fire Station 3] only, and the study
would be addressed during the budget process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the $400,000 would be taken out of
the reserves.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that the $400,000 would still
remain in the reserves but would be designated for Fire Station 3
acquisition.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the
City Manager would review existing funding sources for the study.
Mayor Johnson stated a fire station needs study for the Base might
be premature because the property has not been acquired.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Fire Station 3 needs to be
addressed; the problems at Fire Station 3 are comparable to the
worst sidewalk or pothole.
Councilmember deHaan amended the motion to include that Contracts
return to the Council for review.
Councilmember Matarrese and Vice Mayor Gilmore agreed to the
amended motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
February 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 21, 2006--7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-076) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
appropriate $170,000 in Urban Runoff Funds and authorize the City
Manager to execute a Contract with Regency Centers [paragraph no.
06-079 - ] would be continued to March 7, 2006.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *06-077) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on
February 4, 2006 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 7, 2006. Approved.
(*06-078) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,452,894.81.
(06-079) Recommendation to appropriate $170,000 in Urban Runoff
Funds and authorize the City Manager to execute a Contract with
Regency Centers for repair to public drainage facilities in
coordination with construction of the Bridgeside Shopping Center
improvements. Continued to March 7, 2006.
(
*06-080) Recommendation to appropriate funds and to award Contract
in the amount of $2,057,000 to Pacific Trenchless, Inc. for Cyclic
Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4, No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.
(*06-081) - Recommendation to approve the purchase of five
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,2,"Communications Center Workstations for the Police Department from
Wright-Line Technical Environment Solutions in the amount of
$45,535.03. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(
06-082) Resolution No. 13927, ""Appointing Lorre Zuppan as a
member of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment to Ms. Zuppan.
(06-083) Report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under
California Government Code Section 20903.
The Human Resources Director provided a brief report.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what are the procedures for moving
forward with the Golden Handshake program.
The Human Resources Director responded interested employees would
need to file retirement papers with PERS by June 30; stated PERS
would provide a notice to the employees and would make adjustments
for the two years additional credit once the employees start
receiving pension checks.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the matter would return for
Council action.
The Human Resources Director responded that a resolution will be
presented to the Council on March 7.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a certain number of people
are required to participate in the program, to which the Human
Resources Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a reduction in the work force
would be necessary if individuals do not take advantage of the
program, to which the Human Resources responded staff reduction
might be necessary.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated fourteen classifications are listed;
inquired whether each classification has only person or more than
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,3,"one employee in each pool.
The Human Resources Director responded there are eleven
classifications stated more employees could take advantage; four
Customer Service Representatives are listed but six could take
advantage of the Golden Handshake.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City is required to handle the
program in a certain manner.
The Human Resources Director responded that PERS has specific
requirements; classifications could be designated by department and
division.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the number of employees in a
classification could be limited.
The Human Resources Director responded only if the department,
division, and area were narrowly defined.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes there are no consequences
by having too many employees take advantage of the program.
Mayor Johnson stated fewer employees would be eligible if the
classification is narrowly defined.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-084) Recommendation to adopt the Long-Term Park Use Policy.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director provided a brief report.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Recreation and Park
Department could contract with a third party to conduct a program
in one of the parks, to which the Acting Recreation and Park
Director responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she liked that for-profit groups
would not be considered; the application states that property
owners and tenants would be notified to attend a neighborhood
meeting; inquired whether the Acting Recreation and Park Director
was aware of what the notification process would entail.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative; stated the notification process has been done in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,4,"past.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the process would be at the
applicant's expense, to which the Acting Recreation and Planning
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the long-term, exclusive
use was for the whole park or for not more than 15% of the park.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the long-term,
exclusive use would be for not more than 15% of the park.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to require
Council approval for any alternations to existing park conditions;
the parks are precious open space; he does not believe that the
public should be excluded if a private group has long-term,
exclusive use of a portion of the park; inquired how the policy
would affect existing private use of park land.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded currently there
are no long-term uses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the two pools have long-term uses.
The Recreation and Park Director stated the two pool associations
have leases until 2011.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the leases were renewed, to which the
Acting Recreation and Park Director responded five years ago.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the pool association and
[Cellular] tower leases are the only private uses.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative; stated that the private uses are covered by separate,
detailed agreements.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on Councilmember Matarrese' S
requested changes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated changes would be requiring Council's
approval for any uses that would change existing park conditions.
Mayor Johnson stated a distinction is needed between use and
structures; a requirements is needed in the case of change or
structures. she prefers that the policy be a resolution or
ordinance: she personally prefers an ordinance; stated broader
newspaper noticing should be required; she does not like the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,5,"language regarding the decision being final unless appealed;
questioned whether an appeal would include the Call for Review
procedure.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a philosophical problem with
the phrase ""paving over open space"" unless referring to
recreational-type - facilities.
City Manager inquired whether temporary tents would be acceptable,
to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would prefer to have
temporary tent requests come to the Council for approval; a lot of
money is invested in the parks and; the parks should be treated
like gold; private parties should pay dearly for exclusive use of
the parks.
Mayor Johnson stated a distinguishing factor could be a non-profit
having a public event versus a non-profit having an event that
excludes the public.
Councilmember Matarrese stated exclusive use means groups would
determine who could enter the park and who cannot.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated the paragraph at the
bottom on the page states : ""Park and recreation facilities are
designated for public use. Therefore entities requesting approval
for long-term use of park land and recreation facilities must be
able to accommodate participation from the general public and not
be limited by membership association.
Mayor Johnson stated the term ""exclusive use"" should not be used.
The City Manager suggested using the term ""designated use""
Mayor Johnson stated non-profits are not defined.
The City Manager stated non-profits could be defined by the type of
corporation.
Mayor Johnson inquired about unincorporated organizations.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded a definition for
non-profit status is available.
Mayor Johnson stated the definition should be included in the
policy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,6,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the application form should include
the language: ""Park land and recreation facilities are designed for
public use. Therefore, entities requesting approval for long-term
use of park land and recreation facilities must be able to
accommodate participation from the general public and not be
limited by membership association.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated the language could
be included; noted applicants need to schedule a pre-meeting as
part of the process.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what were the Recreation and Park
Commission's comments regarding the 72 hours and whether the 72
hours applied to a per-year basis.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the Recreation
and Park Commission felt other activities would be impacted if any
park activity shut down a park for 72 hours or more; a 72- hour use
would be subject to more review than shorter-tern uses.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the 72-hour use would apply
if a non-profit occupied different parks for eight-hour periods at
different times of the year.
The
Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded said uses would
be handled through the current one-day reservation process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether reservations for picnic areas would
be included in the policy.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded picnic area
reservations are handled through the one-day reservation process.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Lincoln Park and Franklin
Park pool association responsibilities would change with the
policy, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded
in the negative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the pool associations have a
lease; inquired how the policy would affect the renewal of the
lease.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the Council would
have the option to extend the lease based upon the public service
provided.
Mayor Johnson stated lease renewals are issues that should come to
the Council.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,7,"Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether the pool associations had an
opportunity to weigh in on the long-term policy.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the pool
associations and other groups were notified of meetings.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the pool associations
participated in the meetings, to which the Acting Recreation and
Park Director responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the pool associations could
be contacted directly to ensure that the policy has been received,
to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the
affirmative.
The City Manager stated that the preference is to bring the policy
back to the Council as a resolution with suggested changes.
Mayor Johnson requested that Council resolutions be added to the
compliance checklist in staff reports.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to receive feedback from
others who might be impacted by the policy.
Mayor Johnson stated staff could send notice inviting participation
in the process.
(06-085) Adoption of Resolution Calling Upon Steps to Withdraw Our
Reservists, Coast Guard Units and Members of the California
National Guard Troops from Iraq. Not adopted.
Proponents (In favor of Resolution) :
Mark Irons, Alameda; Diana Morrison, Alameda; Dorothy Kakimoto,
Alameda; Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda; Tom Matthews, Alameda; Richard
Hofmann, Alameda Democratic Club; Deborah James, Alameda: Kathryn
Neale Manalo, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jasmine Tokuda,
Alameda; Norah Foster, Alameda; Allen Michaan, Alameda; Neil
Garcia-Sinclair, Alameda Irma Garcia-Sinclair Alameda; Carl
Halpern, Alameda; Susan Galleymore, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow,
Alameda: Pat Flores, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; and
David Teeters, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of Resolution) :
Richard Myshak, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Dr. Alice A. Challen,
Alameda; and Robert Todd, Alameda.
Mayor Johnson thanked the speakers for the courtesy and respect
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,8,"shown to each other and thanked Councilmember Matarrese for
bringing the issue to the community for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the speakers and those who sent e-
mails and letters; stated the initial notion was to bring the
California National Guard home; personally he feels that the rest
of the troops cannot be left behind an exit is needed for all;
that he is very glad that Ms. Morrison is back home and is honored
by
her presence; other Alamedans are in danger; the City is
directly impacted and damaged by the policy being carried out; he
understands that the Charter sets limitations on the City Council;
the Charter does not limit speaking to higher governments letters
are written and resolutions are made when higher levels of
government propose policies that would damage Alameda; Alameda's
presence was made known regarding the port of Oakland; a seawall
broke due to a storm and high tides on Bay Farm Island; Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money was to pay for the repair;
the federal government provides funding for Section 8 housing,
highways, transportation, and the Base's superfund cleanup the
federal government is saying there is no money; money is taken away
from cities if the State receives less federal money; the Base
impact is real and direct; Alamedans will pay for living on a sand
bar when an earthquake occurs; simple and direct language is
proposed for the resolution; Alameda is paying a price that is
greater than the benefit; proposed the following resolution
language ""WHEREAS, the costs have resulted in unprecedented
Federal budget deficits, which directly impact and damage the State
of California and Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think the community
consensus is to have the Council speak on behalf of the City; she
concurs that local levels are affected by federal issues; she does
not mind communicating her concern regarding the level of the
California National Guard and the ability to respond to local and
State emergencies; she feels the resolution goes beyond that
concern.
Councilmember Daysog stated he had the opportunity to go to
Washington, D.C. over the weekend; he was touched to see 50,000
names of people who paid the ultimate sacrifice; the Vietnam War
was highly controversial and lasted longer than necessaryi Council
meetings are a place where ideas can be heard; the Vietnam Memorial
might not have been necessary if towns voiced opinions earlier;
City Councils need to make statements on issues of grave importance
such as Iraq; the City of Alameda is steeped in history and proud
of traditions, including the Base and individuals such as Jimmy
Doolittle who became a World War II hero; he does not want the City
of Alameda and the City Council to be like other Bay Area City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,9,"Councils such as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Monica; Alameda
is a middle-of-the-road City; words need to be chosen wisely and
carefully; the resolution goes beyond withdrawing the California
National Guard from Iraq but also references certain politicos
distain for President Bush and contributes to the vitriol between
the far left and far right; politics should not drive how Alameda
engages in discussions; the Council must serve all of Alameda and
not just those most angered by President Bush; the Council should
express appreciation for the armed services' work, sacrifices, and
commitment and pray for a safe and speedy return; everyone believes
that having the troops back sooner and safer is best for all;
Alameda has an opportunity to contribute in a way that is stripped
of the far left and far right rhetoric.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked everyone for having a calm discussion on
a very difficult issue; stated some people will be dissatisfied
regardless of tonight's outcome; she would not like to have
tonight's discussion construed as not supporting the troops in
Iraq; the troops deserve support and thanks; the troops are paying
the ultimate price for the country's ideals; concurred with Mayor
Johnson regarding there not being a consensus within the community
on the resolution; she has been persuaded by the eloquent speakers
who spoke of how the City would need the National Guard, Coast
Guard and reservists in case of an earthquake, natural disaster, or
terrorist attack; the City Council has a responsibility to plan for
disasters and ensure that everything is done to protect the
citizens; she does not believe that the Council needs a consensus
from the community to support a resolution to call the California
National Guard home; she has a difficult time with the concept of
the City Council passing a resolution calling for withdrawal of
all troops from Iraq; she does not believe there is a consensus
from the community to speak on the issue; she is trying to keep her
personal opinion separate from her responsibility as an elected
Councilmember; she is trying to represent all of Alameda, not just
a portion.
Councilmember deHaan apologized for having to leave the last
Council Meeting due to a pinched nerve; stated many people were not
proud of how long the Vietnam War lasted and how the veterans were
treated upon return; a disproportionate majority of the veterans
are being served by homeless shelters, soup kitchens and other
aids; he did not think that he would be discussing Vietnam War
issues when he ran for office nothing is going to change the
innocence lost from 911; the war in Iraq is troublesome; Katrina is
a good example of not being prepared; he vowed that he did not want
to get into a national level discussion when he ran for office;
future money will not be available for the Base but is not the
reason that the Base has not been conveyed; stated he will not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,10,"support the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he put together an alternate
resolution that references his opening statement regarding offering
prayers for a speedy and safe return of the troops; read the
operative sections of the alternate resolution; stated the two
resolutions differ in that his resolution does not reference
Congressman Murtha's or Assembly Member Hancock's highly partisan
tones. concerns can be conveyed in words that are more carefully
and wisely chosen.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the alternate resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the alternate resolution does
not ask or demand anything a request needs to be made to have the
National Guard return home and a timetable provided for withdrawal
of the rest of the troops the burden increases as the situation
continues; he understands looking at history for an appreciation
and lessons learned; the Base has not been conveyed because of
haggling over the remediation costs; he is willing to strike
references to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock from
the resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding
asking for something in the resolution; stated Council has the
purview to call the California National Guard home the California
National Guard has been abused and needs to come home for
California's safety and security; she is not willing to support a
resolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops.
Councilmember Matarrese proposed striking out partisan references
[in the original resolution]; stated language regarding a timetable
meets the intent of what the City needs reaching a consensus on
the issue is impractical he thinks the majority of the citizens
are in favor of bringing troops home and understand the need;
consensus is a strong word; leading with the majority is sometimes
necessary instead of driving for consensus.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the majority of the people in attendance
are in favor of the resolution; the majority of e-mails and phone
calls she received were against the resolution; she is not bothered
by not having a majority agree to bring the California National
Guard home because the Council's role is to prepare for a natural
disaster or terrorist attack.
Councilmember Daysog restated his motion to adopt the alternate
resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,11,"Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Councilmember deHaan stated that some Councilmembers have endorsed
some of the State resolutions; he has some major concerns with
moving one step forward at the local level.
On the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes:
Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.
Mayor Johnson CONCURRED with Vice Mayor Gilmore's comments
regarding the Council not being misconstrued as not supporting the
troops; stated a resolution should ask for something.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that a past Council made a more
controversial resolution supporting a nulti-lateral versus
unilateral approach to Iraq three years ago; a fiscal disaster
exists which is as real as a natural disaster.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution striking
references to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the language ""immediate stops
to establish a date and timetable to withdraw U.S. troops"" would
remain in the resolution, to which Councilmember Matarrese
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the MOTION FAILED due to lack of a second.
Mayor Johnson expressed her appreciation to everyone attending the
meeting and to Councilmember Matarrese for bringing the issue to
the community for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a second would be given to
his motion if the language "" withdraw U.S. troops"" was deleted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative stated she is
comfortable in requesting that the California National Guard return
home; national level discussions are more difficult.
Councilmember Matarrese amended his motion to adopt the resolution
striking references to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member
Hancock; keeping the focus on the California National Guard, and
replacing "" withdraw U.S. troops"" with "" withdraw California
National Guard troops.'
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,12,"Councilmember Daysog stated the language as amended still includes
military logistics that go beyond the scope of the City Council;
the resolution is another contribution to the level of rancor
between the far left and far right.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification on how the amended
resolution would read.
Councilmember Matarrese responded that the paragraph referencing
Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock would be removed;
the second to the last paragraph would read: ""NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda calls upon
the President, Congress and the Governor of California to take
immediate steps to withdraw the California National Guard.""
Mayor Johnson stated she has no problem in stating that adequate
California National Guard levels are needed here to deal with
emergencies and disasters, which is different than the proposed
language ; the community does not want the Council to speak about
withdrawing all troops from Iraq; maintaining adequate levels of
the California National Guard is different; State and local
governments have been left at risk.
Councilmember Daysog stated the key phrase in the resolution is
""to take immediate steps to establish a date and timetable to
withdraw U.S. troops"" he is not a military logistics planner; the
best he can do is to offer prayers for a safe and speedy return.
On the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Vice Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Matarrese -
2. Noes : Councilmember deHaan and Mayor Johnson - 2. Abstentions
:
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-086)
-
Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Planning Board.
Mayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft for appointment to
the Planning Board.
(06-087) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the Catellus
workshop; approximately 40 people attended; concerns were expressed
regarding properly utilizing the waterfront; at least 1 million
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,13,"square feet of retail space is planned; developers should be
advised of what the community wants and needs; the City does not
have to take whatever is being offered anymore; he is concerned
with the irst-come-first-serve - - - philosophy ; stated he was one of
the strongest advocates in allowing South Shore to be developed to
full potential; he has problems with South Shore wanting more space
and all pieces of the pie.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Catellus has made formal
applications to change entitlements.
The City Manager responded the City is in negotiations with
Catellus; stated Catellus is going through a public input process.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Catellus was conducting the
public process.
Mayor Johnson stated the public should be aware that the Catellus
and Del Monte projects are not a done deal.
Councilmember Daysog suggested spending $20,000 to $25,000 on a
statistically valid survey of 900 residents to get a sample of the
City's thoughts regarding retail needs.
(06-088) Councilmember Matarrese stated a portable ""Cigarettes
Cheaper"" sign has been placed in the landscaping off of the Park
Street Bridge before Blanding Avenue.
(06-089) Councilmember Matarrese stated an AC Transit Inter-Agency
Liaison Committee meeting was scheduled for tomorrow; he has
requested information regarding the Emery-go-Round in the past;
requested that the City Manager obtain information on the operating
costs, routes, etc. from the City of Emeryville if information is
not provided at the meeting tomorrow; a similar system could be a
good mitigation factor for congestion caused by development.
Mayor Johnson suggested obtaining information on the City of San
Leandro shuttle.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Emery-go-Round is fare box free and
is very effective.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the San Leandro shuttle is fare
box free also; transportation funds were used for the service.
Councilmember Matarrese noted information should be obtained on the
Humphrey-go-Bart shuttle services operated by the University of
California, Berkeley.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,14,"(06-090) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that residents living near
business districts have an issue with litter being left from fast
food restaurants; a resident sent her a link to a
newspaper article regarding Oakland imposing a mandated City
fee on business owners for trash pickup; stated she is
not suggesting imposing a similar fee but that Council should
review the strategy.
(06-091) Councilmember Daysog requested information on fire
inspection costs which he requested in the past.
The City Manager stated that she would provide Councilmember
Daysog with a copy of the fee structure.
(06-092) Councilmember deHaan stated that signs were posted
throughout the City to buy merchandise at a home on Valentine's
Day i he feels that doing so is pushing the envelop to the extreme.
stated that Kentucky Fried Chicken near Park Avenue smells of well- -
cooked oil; newly constructed restaurants have scrubbers for
ventilation; requested staff to review how the odor can be
remedied.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could adopt an
ordinance requiring more filters.
Vice Mayor Gilmore suggesting reviewing whether another entity
regulates the issue.
(06-093) Mayor Johnson stated issues have been discussed at Youth
Collaborative meetings regarding the youth in the community;
suggested that the Council consider forming a Youth Advisory
Council or have youth representatives on to certain boards and
commissions; volunteer opportunities are available for students,
but paying job opportunities are scarce; the Golf Course had a
policy regarding not hiring students under eighteen years old in
the past; the policy has changed so that 16 year old students can
be hired; suggested that the matter be placed on a City Council
agenda.
(06-094) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anything was being done
regarding the fire cleanup at Central Avenue and Park Street.
The City Manager responded that the Planning Director was working
on regulatory remedies.
Mayor Johnson stated that blight has lasted for many years in
the downtown district.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,15,"(06-095) Mayor Johnson stated that a Councilmember Reporting
section should be added to the agenda to allow Councilmembers to
report on conferences and meetings.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the section could be added under
Communications and could include the City Manager.
Mayor Johnson stated that other Department Heads should be included
also.
(06-096) Mayor Johnson stated that she recently attended the U.S.
Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. ; the Conference includes
cities with populations higher than 40,000; power, Base, and
Housing Authority issues are very impacted by federal statues and
policies; the federal government is trying to turn over franchising
telecommunications to the State rather than local governments;
stated that she is on the Economic Development and Housing
Subcommittee as well as Electric Power Subcommittee.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-097) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned
the Regular Meeting at 10:52 p.m. in a moment of silence with
thoughts and prayers that all service members in Iraq are safe and
come home as soon as possible.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 21, 2006- -6:01 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-072) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City
Attorney employment agreement.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:50 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
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,17,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 21, 2006- -7:25 P. M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:57 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner/Authority/Board Member Matarrese led the
Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Authority/
Board Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority/Board Member deHaan moved
approval of the Consent Calendar.
 ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority/Board
Member
Matarrese
seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION
( *06-073CC/06-004CIC)
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council
and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on February 7,
2006. Approved.
CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION
(*06-074 CC/06-005 CIC)
Recommendation to amend the Policy
regarding Procedures for the Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.
Accepted.
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION
Recommendation to adopt the Policy regarding Procedures for the
Hiring of Special Legal Counsel. Accepted; and
Resolution No. 780, ""Revising the Rules and Procedures of the
Housing Authority of the City of Alameda Regarding Powers and
Duties of General Counsel and Procedures for Hiring of Special
Legal Counsel. "" Adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,18,"AGENDA ITEM
CITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION
(06-075 CC/06-006 CIC) Recommendation to amend two loans to the
Alameda Development Corporation for 626 Buena Vista Avenue, Alameda
and provide up to $1.2 million in subsidy to fund eight units of
affordable ownership housing.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated it is a pleasure to be at
this point of the process; partnering with Habitat for Humanity is
excellent each unit has a heavy subsidy as high as $220,000
because of the housing market; inquired whether the Alameda
Development Corporation (ADC) was an outgrowth of the Council.
Greg Fujita, ADC President, responded in the affirmative; stated
ADC's history was based on a 60% homeownership goal eight years
ago; the Homeownership Taskforce suggested formation of a non-
profit.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether ADC was involved
at the Bayport development as well.
Mr. Fujita responded in the affirmative; stated ADC was performing
the buyer selection process for Bayport, RCD and School District
projects.
The Development Services Director noted that ADC also performed the
Kaufman and Broad buyer selection process.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that the staff report
included a cost proforma; the 10% hard construction contingency
caught her eye; other City projects have had 15% to 20%
contingencies. inquired whether the 10% contingency was realistic.
The Development Services Director responded that the project's
partners have experience and seem very comfortable and confident
with the budget.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the subsidy was
money that could only be used for housing programs.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
stated the sources include federal home funds, tax increment
specifically restricted to affordable housing, and affordable
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-21,19,"housing funds.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the funds were
for some type of housing program, and whether the subsidy was
fulfilling the original mandates, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative to both.
incilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation with recognition of the people involved in the
process.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the money was set aside
for housing to meet a need that is nowhere near fulfilled.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary,
Community
Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
February 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-02-27,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD MEETING
MONDAY- - -FEBRUARY 27, 2006- -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Board members Bangert, Holmes, McCahan,
City Manager and President McCormick - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-098) A Study Session was held to discuss Alameda Power
&
Telecom's telecommunication business.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Public Utilities Board
February 27, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-02-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2006- - -6:20 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present :
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-099) Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant : T. McNeil Agency
Claimed Against : City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Council meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced direction was given to legal
counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:40 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
March 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 7, 2006- -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:49 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-106) - Mayor Johnson announced that consideration of change
order for first floor ceiling treatment [paragraph no. 06-109]
would be addressed with the Library Project update [paragraph no.
06-108]
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-107) Presentation of Abbott Diabetes Care.
Art Autorino, Abbott Diabetes Care Divisional Vice President of
Operations, provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that Abbott Diabetes Care products are very
helpful; diabetes testing can be very painful.
Mr. Autorino stated that technology has improved; current testing
is painless.
Mayor Johnson stated people are doing a better job in monitoring
blood sugar levels.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Abbott was researching non-
intrusive testing.
Mr. Autorino responded in the negative; stated the long-term hope
is to have a product that measures the glucose level and
communicates the correct dosage through an insulin pump.
Mayor Johnson stated the community is glad to have Abbott Diabetes
Care in Alameda; thanked the Development Services Department for
working closely with Abbott Diabetes Care.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Development Services Department
became a model working to retaining business.
Mr. Autorino stated the City, County, and State were very helpful.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,2,"Mayor Johnson stated that Advanced Cell Technologies is a new
company at the Business Park.
(06-108) Library Project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief presentation.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(06-109) Consideration of change order for first floor ceiling
treatment for the New Main Library Project.
Mayor Johnson stated that putting items back into the project is
good; the wood ceiling would make the New Main Library more
beautiful.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the change order is a good way to
spend the additional money; the risk goes down as the project nears
completion; now is the time to invest the money back into the
project.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there is a difference between
the durability of the cherry wood ceiling and the acoustical tiles
and whether the Library Building Team or Project Manager had a top
priority add-back.
The Project Manager responded the ceiling change order is the only
choice; stated the architect asserts to the durability of the
cherry wood ceiling in his letter; acoustical tiles cannot be
cleaned; a wood ceiling can be cleaned.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is a number two add-
back that the money should be spent on.
The Project Manager responded other value engineering items cannot
be added back due to scheduling restraints; small items could be
put back.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a value-engineering list be
provided to the Council in an Off Agenda Report.
Councilmember Daysog stated the New Main Library is for all of
Alameda: the Council should move forward if the change order
improves the beauty of the Library; inquired whether the interest
earned on Measure O funds would be used, to which the Project
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,3,"Councilmember Daysog inquired whether redevelopment money could be
used instead; stated the interest earned on Measure O funds could
be used for branch libraries; redevelopment money can only be used
in redevelopment areas.
The Project Manager responded Council approved the contingency
funding on December 21, 2004 the order of funding was Measure O
interest, branch library funding, and then redevelopment.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether branch library funding
would be guaranteed if redevelopment money were used for the add-
back.
Councilmember Daysog stated the best approach would be to move
forward with the change order and leave flexibility for staff to
iron out the details.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she understood that the $670,000
line item was earmarked for branch library upgrades; the concept
was to dip into the branch library funding if the New Main Library
ran over budget.
The Project Manager stated $2 million was allocated for branch
library funding.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether branch library funds would be used
if the New Main Library ran over budget or whether alternate
sources would be used.
The Project Manager responded branch library funds would be used if
the New Main Library runs over the $375,000 [Measure O interest ] ;
stated the final funding source would be redevelopment funds
Mayor Johnson stated the Council could move forward with the change
order and address the financing issue at a later point.
Councilmember deHaan stated that only going $200,000 over on a $20
million project is incredible.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the change order.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated money should be saved
for the branch libraries; Alameda can have a great Main Library and
great branch libraries.
The Project Manager stated he is lobbying to use the $2 million
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,4,"[for branch libraries] as another local match for a future bond
measure; the Statewide Library Bond Measure would provide a
significant amount of funding if the Measure passes in June 2006;
the Office of Library Construction looks very favorably on Alameda
because of the current project.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $2 million was additional
Measure O dollars, to which the Project Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether using the funds as a local match for
the Bond Measure would come back to Council, to which the Project
Manager responded in the affirmative.
On the call for the question, the motioned carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
(*06-110) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on February 21, 2006; the Special Joint City Council and
Public Utilities Board Meeting held on February 27, 2006; and the
Special City Council Meeting held on March 1, 2006. Approved.
(*06-111) Ratified bills in the amount of $6,255,021.50.
(*06-112) Recommendation to appropriate $170,000 in Urban Runoff
Funds and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a
Contract with Regency Centers for repair to public drainage
facilities in coordination with construction of the Bridgeside
Shopping Center improvements. Accepted.
(*06-113) Recommendation to accept the work of Ghilotti Brothers,
Inc. for Park Street Streetscape and Towne Center Project, No. P.W.
10-02-13. Accepted.
(*06-114) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the period ending December 31, 2005. Accepted.
( *06-115) - Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,5,"for the period ending December 31, 2005. Accepted.
(*06-116) Resolution No. 13929, ""Ordering Vacation of a Portion of
a 25 -Foot - Wide Public Utility Easement Within Tract 1866, Filed Map
Book 38, at Page 50 to 54, Alameda County Official Records ;
Vacation of Two 10-Foot Power Easements, Filed RE: 191, Image 107
#79-196972 O.R. Alameda County Official Records and Acceptance of
New 25-Foot Wide Public Utility Easement (Towne Centre) "" Adopted.
(*06-117) Resolution No. 13930, ""Granting Another Designated Period
for Two Years Additional Service Credit as Provided for Under
Contract Amendment between the City and the Public Employees'
Retirement System, and California Government Code Section 20903.
""
Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-118)
Resolution No. 13931, ""Appointing Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft
as a Member of the Planning Board. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember deHaan stated many people apply for various
commissions and boards he is concerned about an individual being
appointed to a board or commission and then be appointed to a
different board or commission within six months; he does not feel
the practice is appropriate; stated he would abstain from voting on
the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated that many people serve on more than one board
or commission; she would not appoint an individual to more than one
board or commission; many people have an interest to serve; she
advises people that it is acceptable to apply for a preferred board
or commission if an opening becomes available shortly after
beginning to serve on their current appointment; serving more than
eight years or serving a three-year term and then two four-year
terms is not appropriate; she does not believe this nomination is
inappropriate because the individual has been on the Economic
Development Commission for a short period of time and a board
position came up that was of more interest; stated the nomination
is not contrary to Councilmember deHaan's comments.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Planning Board had an opening
approximately four or five months ago; the current situation could
have been curtailed if the individual applied for the position
then.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he served on two boards at the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,6,"same time.
Mayor Johnson stated people have served on three boards at one
time; she does not believe serving on multiple boards is necessary
because many people are interested in serving.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Council should respect the
nominee's desire to serve; the Mayor has the prerogative to
nominate individuals; he respects Councilmember deHaan's position.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember deHaan
- 1 . -
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of
appointment to Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft thanked the Council for the honor of being
appointed; stated she enjoyed serving on the Economic Development
Commission.
(06-119) - Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001 - Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment/City-wide and revision of Section 30-5.7 of the
Alameda Municipal Code (AMC), Projections from Buildings and Roof
Planes, Permitted Encroachments, and Treatments of Minimum Required
Yards; and
(06-119A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding a New Subsection 30-5.7 (M) (Extensions of Roof
Pitch and Roof Ridges) to Section 30-5.7 - (Projections from
Buildings and Roof Planes, Permitted Encroachments and Treatments
of Minimum Required Yards) of Chapter XXX (Development
Regulations) to Add a Process for Allowing Additions to Existing
Dwellings with Nonconforming Height. Introduced.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed amendment relates to
the Design Review Guidelines.
The Supervising Planner responded the amendment was proposed by the
Customer Service Initiative Committee and is part of the on-going
Development Code review.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,7,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed amendment included non-
dwelling structures, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed amendment was prompted
by a previously addressed garage issue.
Councilmember deHaan responded house additions and design are an
on-going concern; the proposed amendment would allow the aesthetics
of older homes to be proportional to the existing rooflines when
additions are made.
The Supervising Planner responded the proposed amendment would
address main structures, not accessory structures.
Councilmember Daysog stated a Harbor Bay homeowner wanted to build
an addition without a setback; neighbors were concerned that
sunlight would be lost without the setback.
The Supervising Planner stated neighbors would be notified because
issues would go through the Design Review process.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Customer Service Initiative
Committee was working on other issues.
The Supervising Planner responded staff would be meeting with the
Committee tomorrow; the Committee is working on clarifying the
building process for the public.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-120) Public Hearing to consider two parcel maps, PM 05-002 and
PM 05-003, Marina Berth Condominium Conversion - Marina Village
Properties;
(06-120A) Resolution No. 13932, ""Approving Parcel Maps, PM 05-002
and PM 05-003, at Berth Gates 8 through 11 at Marina Village.
Adopted; and
(06-120B) Resolution No. 13933, ""Granting a Non-Exclusive
Facilities Easement and a Non-Exclusive 8-Foot Wide Ingress and
Egress Easement between the City of Alameda and Alameda Real Estate
Investments within Lot 7 of Tract 6096. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,8,"There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
the hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would recuse himself because he
owns property within 300 feet of Marina Village and left the room.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief report.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether live-aboards were counted as
units under the Housing Element.
The Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated that only
floating homes [houseboats] are treated as housing units.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether dues would pay for the maintenance,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired how dues would be established, to which the
Supervising Planner responded that dues would be established
through the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's)
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are other marina
condominiums in the area.
The Supervising Planner responded Emerycove in Emeryville has been
in place for 20 years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the percentage of ownership
at Emerycove.
The Emerycove Harbor Master responded all 430 slips are privately
owned.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would happen if 100% was not
sold out.
The Emerycove Harbor Master responded the original owner owned the
430 slips and has sold all but 157 slips.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what percentage of ownership is
planned, to which Don Parker responded 100%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the percentage of current
live-aboards.
The Marina Harbor Master Manager responded 10% is allowed, which is
75 live-aboards. currently, there are 63 live-aboards.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,9,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any parking problems would be
encountered with the 10% live-aboards.
The Marina Harbor Master Manager responded parking was not an issue
in the past when there were 75 live-aboards.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog thanked Mr. Parker for the work he has done
for Alameda and for transforming Marina Village.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that Mr. Parker was
the first ARRA Executive Officer; learning the conversion and
development ropes was an exciting opportunity; Marina Village
turned into a great development; the City owes a debt of gratitude
to Mr. Parker for his persistence.
Mr. Parker thanked the Council for recognizing the Marina Village
accomplishmentsi stated tonight will be the last time he would be
speaking before the City Council; he has been in front of 5 Mayors
over the last 27 years; the experience has been wonderful.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, and Mayor
Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Councilmember Matarrese - 1. [Note
Councilmember Matarrese recused himself due to owning property
within 300 feet of Marina Village. ]
(06-121) Resolution No. 13934, ""Establishing a Long-Term Park Use
Policy. "" Adopted.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief report.
Councilmember Daysog inquired who was contacted at the Swim
Association, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director
responded the President.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Recreation and Park Commission
and Acting Recreation and Park Director for a job well done.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,10,"matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,11,"(06-130) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that Long's is working with
the Planning Department on some renovations; suggested using
creativity for the corner across from City Hall, such a mini-park.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the red windows were historic or
could be removed from the Long's site.
(06-131) - Mayor Johnson inquired whether the speed [pole-mounted
radar ] signs were mobile, to which the City Manager responded some
signs are pole-mounted and others are mobile.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would like to have a permanent
speed sign at Lincoln Avenue curve area.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a sign was located on Buena Vista
Avenue.
The City Manager stated that a report on locations would be
provided to the Council.
Mayor Johnson requested a temporary or permanent speed sign be
located on Buena Vista Avenue.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the signs' effectiveness could
be measured.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether speeds could be monitored, to which
the City Manager responded that she would check.
Councilmember deHaan stated a decrease in the number of tickets
issued would be a good measure of the signs' effectiveness.
(06-132) Councilmember Daysog stated that he attended a briefing
co-sponsored - by the League of California Cities East Bay, North
Bay, and Peninsula Divisions; a representative from the Governor' S
office addressed the upcoming infrastructure bond plan; Friday is
the deadline for the Governor and legislature to place something on
the June ballot.
( 06-133 - ) Mayor Johnson thanked the Recreation and Park Department
for providing information on the City facilities naming process ;
stated she would like to have the policy come back to Council for
discussion along with the street naming policy.
(06-134) Mayor Johnson welcomed David Brandt to his first City
Council meeting as Assistant City Manager.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,12,"Councilmember deHaan congratulated the Assistant City Manager for
the new addition to his family.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Interim Assistant City Manager for
doing a great job for the last two months.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Interim Assistant City Manager
stepped into the position and did not miss a beat.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:13 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
12
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 7, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-100) Conference with Property Negotiator - Property: Ballena
Isle Marina; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and Ballena Isle
Marina LLP; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-101) Conference with Real Property Negotiator - Property : 2990
Main Street and 2 Mecartney Road; Negotiating Parties : City
of
Alameda and the Bay Area Water Transit Authority; Under
Negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-102) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-103) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee City Attorney
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 7:40 p.m. to hold the Regular
Council Meeting and reconvened the Closed Session at 9:15 p.m.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Ballena Isle Marina, the
Council obtained briefing from staff and gave direction to real
property negotiators; regarding 2990 Main Street and 2 Mecartney
Road, the Council obtained briefing and gave instruction; regarding
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association, the Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators;
regarding the City Attorney, the Council discussed the City
Attorney.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,14,"Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:10 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
2
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 7, 2006- -7:25 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL-
Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese,
and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-104CC-06-007CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement
Commission, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting
held on February 21, 2006. Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-008CIC) Resolution No. 06-140, ""Authorizing and Directing the
Execution of Loan Agreement Relating to the Issuance of Certain
Bonds by the California Statewide Communities Development
Authority, Approving Official Statement Relating to Such Bonds and
Authorizing and Approving Other Matters Relating Thereto. "" Adopted.
(06-008A/CIC) Resolution No. 06-141, ""Approving Authorizing and
Directing Execution of an Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of
Powers Agreement Relating to the California Statewide Communities
Development Authority. Adopted.
(06-105/CC) Resolution No. 13928, ""Approving the Borrowing of Funds
by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda from
California Statewide Communities Development Authority and
Providing Other Matters Relating Thereto. Adopted.
The Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the
resolutions.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission Meeting
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-07,16,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 7:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission Meeting
March 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - MARCH 21, 2006 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at
9:05 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-138) - Presentation by Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge, U.S. Coast
Guard District 11, recognizing the City of Alameda for becoming a
Coast Guard City.
Rear Admiral Kevin Eldridge gave a brief presentation, read a
statement from the Commandant, and read and presented the
proclamation.
Mayor Johnson presented Alameda flags to Rear Admiral Eldridge.
Barbara Price, Navy League, thanked everyone involved in the two-
year process.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan noted the Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access
improvements [paragraph no. 06-144] are a part of a phasing
processi Lincoln Middle School improved a portion of the parking
lot; additional improvements would take care of the front area of
the school; the City would be requesting additional grants.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]
[Note: Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps Electric
[paragraph no. 06-143] was reopened and addressed at the end of the
meeting. . ]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,2,"[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-139) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on March 7, 2006. Approved.
(*06-140) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,993,920.94.
( *06-141) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted.
(*06-142) Recommendation to release Request for Proposal for
network equipment and services for the Alameda Free Library.
Accepted.
(*06-143) Recommendation to accept the work of Richard Heaps
Electric, Inc. for the Pole-Mounted Radar Speed Display Signs
Project, No. P. W. 06-05-05. Accepted.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to review areas for additional sign
locations; stated the speed signs are a preventative measure.
The City Manager stated that the Pubic Works Department is working
with the Police Department on some type of monitoring that would
measure the signs' effectiveness.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether speeds could be monitored
mechanically; inquired how much the signs cost.
Councilmember deHaan responded the costs are noted in the ledger.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he hopes that more signs are
installed; the pedestrian right-of-way enforcement works; more
education is needed.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is safer if signs help to reduce
speed.
(*06-144) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Fernside Boulevard pedestrian access
improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe Routes to School)
,
No. P.W. 11-02-15. Accepted.
(*06-145) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of
Portland Cement concrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor
street patching, No. P. W. 03-06-06. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,3,"(*06-146) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for installation of rubberized sidewalks,
No. P. W. 02-06-05. Accepted; and
*06-146A) Resolution No. 13935, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Rubberized
Sidewalks. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-147 ) Ordinance No. 2947, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Adding a New Subsection 30-5.7 (M) (Extensions of Roof Pitch and
Roof Ridges) to Section 30-5.7 (Projections from Buildings and Roof
Planes, Permitted Encroachments and Treatments of Minimum Required
Yards) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Add a Process
for Allowing Additions to Existing Dwellings with Nonconforming
Height. Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that the ordinance
recognizes the work of the Task Force.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent: louncilmember Daysog - 1.
]
(06-148) - Public Hearing to consider Zoning Amendment R 05-0002 to
add a Planned Development overlay to a property located within the
R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District and to consider
Parcel Map, PM 06-0001, to allow the division of an existing 14,602
square foot residential lot into two parcels, each with an existing
detached duplex. The project site is located at 1810 and 1812
Clinton Avenue;
(06-148A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning
Certain Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning
Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-4 (Neighborhood Residential)
Zoning District to R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned
Development) Zoning District for that Property Located at 1810 and
1812 Clinton Avenue. Introduced; and
(06-148B) Resolution No. 19336, ""Approving Parcel Map PM 06-0001 to
Allow the Division of a 14,602 Square Foot Parcel into Two Lots at
1810/1812 Clinton Avenue. "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,4,"Alameda City Council
4
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,5,"Councilmember deHaan stated the vacated Economic Development
Commission position would allow a person to serve a three and a
half year term and then two more terms.
Mayor Johnson stated she would not want to appoint someone for a
three and a half year term and then two four-year terms stated
some positions are covered by commission By-laws and some are set
by the Charter.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes the Council would have a
chance to review the Film Commission applications and provide some
recommendations.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would be happy to receive input from
the Council; the City Clerk's office has all of the applications on
file for review.
Councilmember Daysog noted that he has never missed a regular
Tuesday night City Council Meeting.
Mayor Johnson congratulated ouncilmember Daysog on an impressive
attendance record.
Mayor Johnson nominated Arthur A. Autorino to the Economic
Development Commission and Irene Balde to the Housing Commission
stated that the Film Commission nominations would be held over.
(06-150) Councilmember Matarrese requested that the next Library
Project update or an Off Agenda Report address treatment to be used
along the edge of the Library parking lot.
(06-151) Councilmember Matarrese requested a review of potential
ride share locations at the Webster Street outbound tube; requested
the review be accelerated due to Enterprise Landing [Catellus
project] stated ride share could be potential mitigation for
anything [development] west of Webster Street addressing the
matter could include fixing flooding that occurs.
( (06-152) Councilmember deHaan stated there has been increased
criminal activity at the Alameda Town Centre; a police officer was
sponsored two years ago; he would like to revisit the issue to
ensure an orderly build out.
(06-153
-
)
Councilmember deHaan stated that the Alameda Town Centre
Walgreen's would be open 24 hours; requested information on whether
a permit was issued for the 24-hour operation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,6,"(06-154) - Councilmember deHaan stated that the sidewalk on the Park
Street side of the Alameda Towne Centre was only three feet; five
feet would be more appropriate.
(06-155) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended AC Transit's
hydrogen fuel cell demonstration on March 13; the bus has already
been operating in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson noted that the bus seems to be very quiet.
(06-156) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anyone attended the AP&T
electric partnership groundbreaking.
Councilmember deHaan responded that he attended; stated the
environment would be impacted if the gas was not captured.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 11:15 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
6
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,7,"MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MARCH 21, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-135 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director. Employee Organization :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
Al Fortier, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he was concerned
with the lack of progress made negotiations have been going on
since December 2004; one tentative agreement was reached and was
rejected by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW) ; two meetings have been held since January 26 for a total of
four hours; strike sanction has been granted by the local union,
the Alameda Central Labor Council and the International Office of
IBEW; a table agreement would be in the best interest of the City
and IBEW; requested that the Council give the City's negotiating
team the direction necessary to provide an acceptable table
agreement.
Gary Fenton, Journey Lineworker, Local 1245, stated he has been in
the electrical trade for thirty years; IBEW is asking for a fair
contract; IBEW's wages and medical benefits did not put the City in
the current financial position.
(06-136) Conference with Property Negotiator; Property : Ballena
Isle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Ballena Isle
Marina LLP; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-137) Public Employee Performance Evaluation. Title: City
Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to
labor negotiators; regarding Conference with Property Negotiator,
the Council obtained briefing and gave instructions to real
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,8,"property negotiator; regarding Public Employee Performance
Evaluation, the Council discussed the City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
2
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- -MARCH 21, 2006- -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 8:03 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : louncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, and Mayor/Chair Johnson
- 5. [Note: Councilmember/Commissioner
Daysog arrived at 9:05 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-157CC/06-009CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 7, 2006.
Approved.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissione deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried
by
unanimous
voice
vote
-
4.
[Absent:
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog - 1. ]
AGENDA ITEM
(06-158CC/06-010CIC) Recommendation to review Section 106 Findings
and approve revised designs of the 350-space parking garage and
Cineplex at the corner of Oak Street and Central Avenue within the
C-C T Community Commercial Theater) zoning district;
(06-158A/CC) Resolution No. 13937, ""Approving Amended Final Designs
for Design Review DR05-0041 for the Proposed Cineplex at 2305
Central Avenue and DR05-0028 for the Proposed Parking Garage at
1416 Oak Street. Adopted;
(06-158B/CC) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for the Rehabilitation of the Historic
Alameda Theatre; and
(06-158C/CC)
Recommendation to adopt Conceptual Plans and
Specifications and authorize Call for Bids for Design-Build of the
Civic Center Parking Garage, CIP No. 90-19.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
The Architect gave a brief presentation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,10,"The Development Services Director continued her presentation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the 15%
contingency for the historic theater and the 9 and a half percent
contingency for the parking structure are included in the budget,
to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendations) : Pauline Kelley,
Alameda Kevis Brownson, Alameda (submitted petition) ; Harvey
Brook, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ; Barbara Mooney,
Alameda; Lars Hansson, PSBA; Mary Amen, PSBA; Harry Dahlberg,
Economic Development Commission; Ed Clark, West Alameda Business
Association; Debbie George, Alameda; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft,
Alameda; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read list of 11
names) ; Robb Ratto, PSBA ( submitted comments) ; Walt Jacobs, Alameda
Chamber of Commerce; Charles Carlise; Alameda; Norma Payton
Henning, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of staff recommendations) : Joe Maylor,
Alameda (submitted comments) ; Susan Battaglia, Alameda; Deborah
Overfield, Alameda; Valerie Ruma, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Ani
Dimusheva, Alameda; Scott Brady, Alameda; Nancy Hird, Alameda;
Denise Brady, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society Robert
Gavrich, Alameda; Michael Kelly, Alameda; Eric Scheuermann,
Alameda; Irene Dieter, Alameda Vern Marsh, Alameda Anders Lee,
Alameda ( submitted comments) ; David Kirwin, Oakland (submitted
comments) i Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jon
Spangler, Alameda; Patricia Gannon, Alameda; Kevin Frederick,
Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the meeting.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 9:37 p.m. and reconvened the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:43 p.m.
***
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation in
response to public comments.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on the
General Plan requirement for a Civic Center specific plan; inquired
whether a scale model could be produced.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,11,"The Development Services Director responded that a number of
printed articles have suggested that the City has not responded to
the General Plan requirement for a Civic Center specific plan;
stated the Planning Board extensively discussed the matter.
The Supervising Planner stated the General Plan had a policy for a
specific Civic Center plan; the General Plan was adopted in 1991 to
in vogue specific plans which have associated financing mechanisms ;
the Civic Center plan was not mandatory.
The Development Services Director stated that the General Plan also
has a number of great ideas such as building affordable housing and
buying Estuary Park; a prioritization process goes along with the
General Plan; stated a massing model was done initially to address
size and scale; a model would cost between $16,000 to $18,000. a
model would take four to six months to prepare; the budget has
escalated 3% since November 2004.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether four to six
months was a reasonable amount of time to prepare a model.
The Development Services Director responded a site and building
model would take about four to six months; stated a survey would be
needed; an expanded area model would take two to three times more.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was the date of the
marketing study.
The Development Services Director responded all decisions have been
based upon the economic analyses completed within the last year.
ncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated discussions have suggested
that the market has changed.
The Development Services Director stated updates have been made
regarding the competition; the Jack London Cinema is at capacity.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he understood that the
marketing study and subsequent economic development profile
indicated that Oakland was considering adding more screens  he was
not sure whether the marketing study addressed the issue.
The Development Services Director responded the marketing study did
not set numbers for Jack London or speculate what additional
screens would do to the market; Oakland's expansion was
undetermined.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,12,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated expansion was iffy at
best.
The Development Services Director stated Alameda has a very close,
local market that would continue to draw patrons because of
convenience and appeal. the business district and Alameda Theater
are catalytic and create a draw.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the community looks
forward to having movies in Alameda; the Jack London area is not
the best environment; stated the 20-inch overhand had been a
concern; inquired how the 20-inch overhand was corrected.
The Development Services Director responded five inches were gained
because the owner was able to utilize different speakers with
different dimensions; additional inches were captured throughout
the theater.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that it appeared that
inches were captured in the stair structure.
The
Development
Services
Director
concurred
with
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated most of the computer -
assisted drawings were taken from a certain distance; inquired
whether scale drawings could be provided from an up-close, upward
angle.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore thanked everyone for continuing to
come out to support their position; discussions have been decisive
and helpful; the historic theater closed over twenty years agoi
restoring the theater was intimately tied to going to a theater in
Alameda; changes in the theater industry have been discussed; a USA
Today article noted that theater owners are not worried about which
way the industry would goi preserving the historic theater does not
make sense if there was a possibility that the theater industry
would not be successful in the future; discussions have addressed
single screens not being economically feasible because of
maintenance and operation costs; 80% of ticket revenue goes to the
studios when a film initially comes out the percentage is higher
with certain blockbusters; theater operators do not make a lot of
money from ticket sales in the first couple of weeks that the
movies are out; more screens are needed to rotate movies around;
questioned saving the theater if the historic fabric is not
preserved and the theater industry is not viable; movies have not
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,13,"been shown at the historic theater for over twenty years; the
marketplace has not created an economical reuse of the historic
theater; the building is beautiful and should be saved; she would
not vote to save the theater at any price; she is concerned with
how costs have escalated.
ouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated a quantum step has been
made in the design; concerns have been expressed regarding the Oak
Street traffic elements; stated two incoming lanes should be
reviewed; roll-up doors are on the Oak Street side adjacent to the
parking structure; he would like to review alternatives; commended
the Historical Advisory Board and Architectural Preservation
Society for working to make the design better; input has resulted
in a majority of the architectural changes but does not mean that
the mass and sizing were proper or acceptable; pricing is a
concern.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what happens if the bids
are too high.
The Development Services Director responded all bids could be
rejected; precautions have been made to pre-qualify bidders.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated value engineering was
performed on the Library project; inquired whether value
engineering could be done on the theater project.
The Development Services Director responded the historic theater
has been value engineered; $1.8 million would be financed by the
developer for the Furniture Fixtures and Equipment a larger
contingency [15%] was carried because historic renovations tend to
have surprises; the contingency could be lowered when construction
estimates are complete; value engineering would involve the most
historically significant features to be restored; 70% of the hard
construction budget is in systems.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what was the current cost for the
historic theater, to which the Development Services Director
responded $12.849 million.
Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese
stated
the
staff
recommendation has three elements 1) Review of the Section 106
findings, 2) adoption of a resolution [final design], and 3)
adoption of plans and specifications for bidding out the historic
theater and parking structure; general consensus was that the
current design is much better than before and is a credit to the
architect and individuals who provided comments; the bidding
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,14,"process would provide the key on whether or not to save the
historic theater at any cost; starting now is critical; he would
like to see the project go out to bid; another evaluation would be
necessary once the bid results are received; he does not believe
the size would affect the character of the City because the people
are the character; Park Street has blossomed by bringing in
Starbuck's Coffee and Peet's Coffee; stated he was ready to move
forward.
The Development Services Director clarified that the previously
mentioned $12.849 million figure for the historic theater]
includes acquisition, relocation and contingencies; the
rehabilitation is estimated at $7.3 million.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that tonight's meeting
addressees design and the bidding process the financial aspects of
the project continue to trouble him; Alameda will collect 30 to 40
cents per-square foot on the historic theater, which is
substantially below the $1.50 per-square foot market rate for new
theater space; he remains convinced that the City should be
collecting a rent significantly north of 40 cents per- square foot
and somewhere south of $1.50 per-square foot to ensure that the
project is financially beneficial to both the City and the
developer; the difference between 40 cents per-square foot and
$1.50 per-square foot may seem trivial but equates to millions of
dollars that Alameda would be loosing over many years;
rehabilitation costs have increased by 30% with strong prospects of
increased costs once rehabilitation commences. the City should be
collecting a rent commensurate with the project risks; the need for
a better deal with the developer is underscored by the fact that
both a consultant and City staff agreed that local residents would
buy movie tickets in droves; the Central Cinema proves the demand
analysis to be correct; both the developer and the City should be
sharing in the anticipated strong demand for movie tickets and
concessions; the historic downtown area should be revived by
refurbishing the old theater within the dictates of financial
prudence and reason.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on the rental rate for
the historic theater.
The Development Services Director responded that the historic
theater differs from new theater space; the overhead, maintenance,
and lease requirements are quite extraordinary; the lease
requirements for maintenance are very strict; the Grand Lake
Theater's rent structure is almost identical to Alameda's with the
exception of retail rent; the historic theater retail space would
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,15,"be maintained by the City under the ground lease and the City would
receive all of the rental income; the Grand Lake Theater had all
improvements and investments made years ago; the City has a healthy
box office/concession profit participation starting at 17% above a
performance measure once the developer reaches a certain return
profit participation is through the life of the project; the
community should not be responsible for the long-term maintenance.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated the information is very
helpful, but the fact remains that there is a huge spread between
40 cents per-square foot and the market rate; the City should
collect 60 to 80 cents per-square foot the developer would still
receive a substantial, below market rent; he believes 40 cents per-
square foot is significantly south of where the City should be.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated parking was the most
important issue in the Downtown Vision Plan; the theater was
considered a nicety but not a necessity two redevelopment areas
were merged to develop a funding stream; approximately $26 million
was left from the $47 million after pay offs; the majority of the
money was spent on Park Street; approximately $1.2 million was
spent in the Webster Street area; the majority of revenue came from
Marina Village; alternative sites were considered to gain
additional parking; the parking analysis indicates a shortage of 19
spaces during peak times; the theater uses the vast majority of the
parking capacity parking spaces have been lost with the street
renovation; parking spaces were bought out with the Knowles
project i the proposed parking structure was initially was six
levels; seven levels were needed because of the setback; the
seventh level is not serviced by the staircase or elevators; the
new parking is not 350 spaces because there was existing parking
at the Video Maniacs; 280 additional spaces would cost
approximately $40,000 per parking space; if all parking spaces are
counted, the amount gets down to about $32,000 per space; studies
indicate a range from $15,000 to $17,000 per space; today's costs
are close to $20,000; a larger construction cost is created by
building vertically; the City would pay $3.8 million for the
staircase, escalator, and elevators because seven screens require
two stories a seven or nine screen theater could be built at the
old Video Maniacs site and a parking structure could be built
elsewhere if the building was single story; he is concerned with
the extra $4 million from the bonds; the theater is not a complete
restoration; the lobby would be beautiful; the balcony probably
would not be completed because of constraints; he has concerns that
heavy traffic would be brought to Oak Street; a study was conducted
for 11:00 p.m. to 1:00 a .m. Saturday traffic while the peak hours
start at 8:30 p.m. ; project costs are now estimated to be $28
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,16,"million; the $7 million HUD loan was not anticipated when the
project began; alternate parking space locations are available
which would enable more screens if necessary; the US Bank site
would provide 350 parking spaces; he has major financial concerns.
The Development Services Director stated the City floated a $46.5
million bond with a net of $40 million; $13 million was to repay
Marina Village for the investment made in infrastructure; $2.2
million was to repay a loan from the West End project;
approximately $4 million of the Streetscape Project was
uncommitted; projects identified for the Bond money included the
Alameda Theater, Bridgeside Shopping Center, and parking structure;
$7.5 million was for the Alameda Theater and $10.3 million was for
the parking structure; the 2002 parking study assumed that the
average space would cost approximately $18,000 per parking stall;
the cost did not include relocation, demolition, or property
acquisition; current per space construction costs are $23,700; the
$32,000 cost per space includes acquisition, relocation, design,
etc. ; Watsonville just finished a 460 parking space garage which
was bid at $20,600 per space eighteen months agoi concrete costs
have accelerated; Santa Rosa recently bid a parking garage at
$30,000 per stall for construction; the elevator requirements of
the new theater serve the historic theater also; an elevator is
required for a public assembly facility the previously proposed
parking structure included parking on the top deck; each level has
increased in height to accommodate equipment and air space needs a
$3 million grant was submitted to the State under Proposition 30
about a month and a half ago for additional historic theater
preservation activity.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated real costs would not be know until
construction bids are received; the City experienced bids coming in
over budget for the New Library; the Webster Street project was
overbid and the bids were rejected; concurred with Vice
Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore regarding not restoring the theater at
any cost; the theater has been rotting for 25 years since a 1981
vote to save the theater; theater preservation and restoration may
not be important to everyone; the majority of the community finds
restoring the theater important attempts to save the theater have
failed in the past. opportunities are coming to an end; the roller
rink significantly damaged the property; she does not want the
theater to have five screens; the theater should not be restored if
the integrity is destroyed; another project would not go forward if
the current project was unsuccessful; the current design was
significantly different than the past; urged moving forward with
the project.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-03-21,17,"Councilmember/Commission Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendations and adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried
by the following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Noes :
louncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to review the
possibility of having the U.C. Berkeley Architecture School build a
model.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated not holding up the project was
important.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 10:57 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
9
Community Improvement Commission
March 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-03-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 4, 2006- -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note: Councilmember Daysog arrived at
9:36 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-165) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
release Request for Proposals for Thin Client Public Access System
[paragraph no. 06-169] and the recommendation to release Request
for Proposals for equipment, software, and services for a computer
laboratory [paragraph no. 06-170] would be addressed with the
Library project update [paragraph no. 06-168]
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-166) Proclamation declaring April 2 through 8, 2006 as Boys
and Girls Club Week in Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to George
Phillips, Executive Director, Dan Nguyen, Program Director, and Tom
Sullivan, President of the Board of Directors.
Mr. Phillips thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated
General Colin Powell attended a groundbreaking ceremony the first
round has been completed for teen participation in the Be A
Responsible Teen (BART) Program.
(06-167) Proclamation declaring April 4, 2006 as ""Video Station""
Owners Appreciation Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Ken and Peggie
Dorrance, Video Station owners.
Mr. Dorrance thanked the Council for the Proclamation; presented
the Council with hats and candy.
(06-168) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,2,"Councilmember deHaan inquired how close the parking spaces need to
be to the Library site, to which the Project Manager responded 400
feet.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the adjacent property
[Gim' S ] owner could be asked to stabilize the building or at least
get the building painted.
The Project Manager responded that he plans to speak to the
property owner; stated the building is leaning towards the back.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that people concerned with the
historical aspect of the building should be involved; the
development has the potential to be attractive all the way up to
Park Street.
Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society (AAPS) should be involved; they [Gim's owner ] submitted
plans to the Historical Advisory Board in January.
The Project Manager stated development plans for the property have
been submitted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that everything should be done to
make the site look good.
The Project Manager stated that he would contact the property owner
before his next presentation to Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(06-169 - ) Recommendation to release Request for Proposals for Thin
Client Public Access System for the Alameda Free Library.
(06-170) Recommendation to release Request for Proposals for
equipment, software, and services for a computer laboratory for the
Alameda Free Library.
The Project Manager provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the computers would be leased
or purchased, to which the Project Manager responded that the
computers would be purchased.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that technology changes rapidly inquired
whether leasing would be more cost-effective.
The Project Manager responded that the matter would be reviewed and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,3,"staff would report back to Council next month.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the review would affect the
project's timeline, to which the Project Manager responded in the
affirmative.
The City Manager stated that she discussed the matter with the
Finance Director; leasing may not be cost-effective; a computer
equipment replacement fund is being considered for the up-coming
budget and would cover replacements every three years.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the grand opening hinged
on having the computers in place, to which the Project Manager
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter could be brought
back to the Council.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the computers are scattered
throughout the building, to which the Project Manager responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the computers are a standard
model, to which the Project Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City partners with a
large computer company.
The Finance Director responded the City does not partner, but that
COMPAQ computers are exclusively purchased for replacement part
standardization and to allow the City to purchase at a bulk rate;
mass purchasing is usually done through the State Department of
General Services.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether costs are similar to
educational pricing, to which the Finance Director responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Requests for Proposals should move forward
if a cost comparison has already been reviewed; inquired whether a
separate maintenance agreement would need to be purchased if the
computers are leased.
The Finance Director responded a 90-day warranty would be issued on
leased equipment.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the 68 computers are the full
compliment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,4,"The Project Manager responded in the affirmative stated a Request
for Proposal would be presented to Council in May for the move.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether old computers would be moved to the
new Main Library, to which the Project Manager responded 16
computers would be moved from the Interim Library.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendations.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Daysog - 1.
]
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the balance of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number . ]
( *06-171) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on March 21, 2006. Approved.
(*06-172) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,676,785.42.
( *06-173) Recommendation to accept the Interstate 880/Broadway-
Jackson Interchange Feasibility Study. Accepted.
(
*06-174) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon
Construction, Inc. for the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 repair of concrete
sidewalks, No. P.W. 07-05-06. Accepted.
( *06-175) Recommendation to authorize the City of Alameda's
continued participation in the Alameda County Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program for Fiscal Year 2007-2010. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-176) Resolution No. 13938, ""Appointing Arthur A. Autorino as a
Member of the Economic Development Commission. "" Adopted; and
(06-176A) Resolution No. 13939, ""Appointing Irene Balde as a Member
of the Housing Commission. Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,5,"Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Mr. Autorino and Ms. Balde.
(06-177) Ordinance No. 2948, ""Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain
Property Within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance
No. 1277, N.S. from R-4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District
to R-4-PD (Neighborhood Residential Planned Development Zoning
District for that Property Located at 1810 and 1812 Clinton
Avenue. Finally passed.
Councilmember deHaan moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]
(06-178) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning
Board's failed motion regarding Final Development Plan FDP05-003,
Major Design Review DR05-0127, and Tentative Parcel Map TM05-003
for three new commercial buildings. The property is located at 2201
Harbor Bay Parkway. Applicant: Venture Corporation;
(06-178A) Resolution No. 13940, ""Upholding the Appeal by Venture
Corporation for Development of Three New Commercial Buildings.
""
Adopted and
(06-178B) Resolution No. 13941, ""Approving Final Development Plan
FDP05-003 Major Design Review DR05-0127, and Tentative Parcel Map
TM05-003 with comment to work with the Planning Director on the
activity-based treatment of the green space between the walking
path and parking lot. "" Adopted.
The Planning Director provided a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the trees would be smaller to
provide a view.
The Planning Director responded that some existing trees would
remain; smaller accent trees would be used in the parking area; the
trees are arranged to ensure views; staff is working with Venture
Corporation on the final landscape plan.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Venture Corporation
anticipates any future condominium development after Phase 2.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,6,"Robert Eves, President of Venture Corporation, responded in the
negative; stated Phase 1 is completed and sold out; Phase 2 would
provide 24 office spaces i Venture Corporation does not own any more
land.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the same architectural design
was reviewed for both projects, to which Mr. Eves responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was not thrilled with having
the buildings look identical.
Mr. Eves stated that the buildings are not identical; Phase 2 color
treatments are more upscale and have more architectural texture;
the buildings are designed to maximize the views.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be access
concerns if the buildings were moved forward.
Mr. Eves responded alternative plans have been studied; Phase 2
occupants could lose views all together at least half of Phase 1
occupants could have views blocked.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the other speakers wished to speak
at this time.
Mr. Eves stated a presentation was planned, but the Planning
Director's presentation was done very well; Venture Corporation
representatives were present to answer any questions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the positioning of the buildings
has been developed to maximize all tenants' views.
Mr. Eves concurred with Councilmember deHaan.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she did not get a sense that the Planning
Board overwhelmingly liked the alternative solutions presented by
Venture Corporation the second time; requested Mr. Eves to comment.
Mr. Eves stated that the Planning Board did not like any of the
alternatives; the consensus was that the design presented was the
best design; two Planning Board members felt the design should be
changed but were unable to provide any ideas for change ; one
Planning Board member did not feel that the design was consistent
with her personal goals.
Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates the Planning Board's
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,7,"consideration of the project; she prefers that the buildings are
set back from the waterfront so that the trees and berm are
visible; the open space feeling is more consistent with the way the
business park was planned.
Mr. Eves stated that Alameda is a water-oriented community; every
Phase 1 property owner has a view; Phase 2 owners would also have
views.
Mayor Johnson stated the plan maximizes the views from the
buildings and also creates an open-space feeling; the designs are
nice.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the buildings all have good views
buildings cannot be moved without compromising someone's view; some
of the green space that comprises the swale and the berm could help
contribute to the maximized use of the waterfronti a public area
would provide three picnic tables suggested placing more picnic
tables along the front strip to provide people activity in the
green space; stated commercial condominiums are important to the
City and allow ten small owners to own space instead of just lease.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated a
small business cannot own business property in Alameda unless
housing stock is converted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated if the buildings were moved up to the
property line, tonight's discussion could be addressing how to
screen the buildings from the view of people walking by; an effort
has been made to site the buildings appropriately and maximize the
views; she likes the design.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the layout maximizes the views: he
would prefer to see a change in the façade from one vista to
another; he would like to see more design; the buildings look like
lined up boxes; he would like to see some brick treatment.
Mr. Eves stated the project is the 34th Venture Corporation Center
projects have been immensely well received; the buildings move
forward and back with the goal of clearly distinguishing different
companies; the desire is to give the buildings a corporate feel
while providing individuality.
Councilmember deHaan stated that more design could have been given
to the building facing the street.
Mr. Eves noted that architecture is the most subjective of all art
forms
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,8,"Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolutions with
comment to work with the Planning Director on the activity-based
treatment of the green space between the walking path and parking
lot.
The Planning Director stated that the landscape plan would come
back to her for approval.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember Daysog - 1.
]
(06-179) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$1,246,200.00 to East Bay Construction Company, Inc. for the
construction of the 4-acre Bayport Park.
The Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the staff report indicates that
the clarifications are non-substantive; requested a review of the
issues.
The Redevelopment Manager responded four issues were raised: 1) bid
pricing was not provided in both words and figures, 2) sub-
contractors were not listed for each portion of the work, 3) the
supplier was not listed for the restroom, and 4) Disadvantage
Business Enterprise status was not provided.
Wayne Tolman, Goodland Landscape Construction, submitted a handout;
reviewed the issues for the bid protest.
Tom Wortham, Goodland Landscape Construction owner, outlined the
irregularities in the bid documents submitted by East Bay
Construction.
In response to Mayor Johnson's request for clarification of the bid
protest issues, the City Attorney stated that a review of the
issues indicate the four bidding defects amount to bidding
irregularities and do not create an unfair advantage ; stated
Alameda is a Charter City and is not covered by the Public Contract
Code.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the additional information
provided tonight could be a concern.
The City Attorney responded the bid amount did not change; the
substance of the bid document is correct.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,9,"The Redevelopment Manager stated that the word ""altered"" is not
correct; a clarification was submitted for the sub-contractor
omissions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the list of sub-contractors
changed after the bid opening, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is concerned with the
contractor's ability to put the necessary attention into the detail
of the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that the matter is a legal issue.
Councilmember Matarrese stated contractors might bid higher if the
City has a bad reputation.
Mayor Johnson stated contractors might not bid at all; she is
uncomfortable with rejecting bids if the bidding process complies
with all legal requirements everyone's numbers have been exposed.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Redevelopment Manager
would like to review any legal aspects and how a delay would affect
the schedule.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the schedule is tight;
substantial completion is anticipated by the end of July.
***
The City Council addressed other agenda items and resumed
discussion in the middle of the Report on AC Transit [paragraph no.
06-187]
.
***
The City Attorney announced that the staff recommendation would be
changed to reject all bids.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the revised staff
recommendatior to reject all bids and requested that the bidding
process be expedited.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what are the reasons for rejecting
the bids.
The City Attorney stated that attempts were unsuccessful to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,10,"options are available; Alameda does not need a 100-foot tall Target
next to the beach; the City should learn a lesson from the Neptune
Beach area; urged the Council to think outside the box.
(06-183) Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, inquired whether the new appeal
fee policy would encourage frivolous denials on behalf of the
Planning Board; stated a bill was forwarded to a collection agency
before any explanation was given; the Planning Director claimed
that the fees were justified because a form was signed she never
signed the form.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council discussed the matter in Closed
Session; direction was given to the City Manager and Planning
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,11,"Director; a meeting could be scheduled to discuss the matter.
Ms. Dimusheva inquired whether the invoice would be taken out of
collection until the matter is resolved.
Mayor Johnson responded that the matter could be discussed with the
City Manager.
(06-184) - Valerie Ruma, Alameda, submitted her comments ; stated
that the [appeal fee] charges are unwarranted because the charges
were not identified prior to filing the appeal; the charges are a
hindrance to the democratic processi urged the Council to rescind
the fees and change the appeal fee resolution.
(06-185) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, requested that his appeal fees be
returned; stated the City entered into a landscape maintenance
agreement with the property owner adjacent to his property; the
agreement requires the property owner to maintain the property in a
weed-free condition; the property owner has not complied.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-186) - Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to
the Film Commission. Continued to April 18, 2006.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether applications are still being
accepted.
The City Clerk responded that applications are always accepted;
applicants are advised that applications submitted after the
deadline might not be considered.
Mayor Johnson stated the interest level is very high.
Vice-Mayor Gilmore stated applicants' experience is mind-boggling.
(06-187) Report on AC Transit Inter-agency Liaison Committee
meeting and discussion of AC Transit's use of the High Street
Bridge.
Councilmember Matarrese stated deadhead buses are using the High
Street Bridge to bring empty buses to the AC Transit yard or San
Francisco; the deadhead buses make a loud noise when crossing the
[High Street Bridge span; the situation was brought to AC
Transit's attention at the March 22 inter-agency Liaison Committee
meeting; AC Transit made a trip to see if additional time would be
required to run the buses back to the yard from the end of the line
on Bayfarm Island over to Doolittle Drive or back to San Francisco
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,12,"over the Miller Sweeney Bridge AC Transit estimated the cost would
be an additional $20,000 per year; Line 63's continued service to
Alameda Point was discussed; Alameda residents requested Line 63
not be cut, particularly from the Homeless Collaborative the need
for a bus shelter was also addressed; Line 51's bus bunching needs
to be revisited; route changes may be contemplated for Line 51;
electric bus information was provided; Ecopass discounts would not
be an option for the City; another option is being considered the
deadhead buses exceed the 3 ton limit; the reason for the 3 ton
limit is unknown; recommended that the Council give direction to do
something about the noise problem.
The Council interrupted the discussion to address the
recommendation to award contract to east Bay Construction
[paragraph no. 06-179].
Dave Needle, Alameda, stated that AC Transit's measurements have a
significant flaw; 37 buses cross the High Street Bridge daily; AC
Transit disagrees that moving the bus route to Hegenberger was less
expensive; AC Transit shows a 1 minute to 4 minute time difference
in trip time; $12,000 of the estimated $19,000 cost is wrong;
recommended that the Council request AC Transit to try new routes
for a month.
Ed Payne, Alameda, stated the High Street Bridge was built in 1937
for lightweight traffici shockwaves are felt when the buses cross
the span; the routes are two minutes shorter by going to
Hegenberger and Doolittle Drive.
Ron Valentine, Alameda, stated the 3 ton limit is posted at both
ends of the Bridge buses are not the only vehicles causing the
noise recommended that the buses use commercial streets instead of
residential streets; requested Council to urge AC Transit to try
the alternate route.
Mayor Johnson clarified that in-service bus routes are not being
discussed only empty buses.
Councilmember Matarrese directed the City Manager to request AC
Transit to try re-routing for a month.
(06-188 - ) Councilmember Matarrese requested that a meeting be
scheduled with the Transportation Commission to discuss the
Transportation Master Plan among other issues; traffic management
is the big issue; he would like the conclusions that were discussed
at a November [Transportation Commission] meeting addressed sooner
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,13,"rather than later.
(06-189 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to make
a
personal statement regarding the recent article in the Alameda
Journal i he does not condone that type of behaviori he is sorry for
any distress caused to Ms. Overfield or her family; he regrets any
undue burden that has been placed on the Council or staff regarding
the issue; thanked the people that have supported him.
(06-190) Councilmember deHaan stated that he visited the Grand
Street Bridge with the City Manager and noticed major
deterioration; the cement barrier has deteriorated and fallen into
the lagoon; the overall integrity of the bridge is questionable.
(06-191) Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned that the
Commission term limits are not governed by the City Charter
requested a discussion on how to limit terms to eight years when
filling partial terms.
Mayor Johnson stated she sees a problem with having differing term
limit rules.
(06-192) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that Public Works has a crack
sealing and street resurfacing schedule; the upper portion of Grand
Street between Central Avenue and Lincoln Avenue is starting to
show age; requested Public Works to review the matter.
Councilmember deHaan stated there was a lot of activity the last
time the matter was discussed; the rain has caused a delay in
current activity.
(06-193) Mayor Johnson stated she received an e-mail regarding an
accident or stalled vehicle in the tube; the number one priority is
getting the obstacle cleared; requested that the police protocol be
reviewed.
The City Manager stated that the Acting Police Chief has responded
to the e-mail; the issue is getting a tow truck to the site.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was caught in the delay; she saw
the tow truck trying to get through; traffic backs up if there is a
stall in the tube.
Mayor Johnson stated the tow truck should come from Oakland.
Councilmember deHaan stated Caltrans had prepositioned a tow truck
for clearing in the past; suggested reviewing the matter.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,14,"Mayor Johnson stated the tube services two-thirds of the Island:
signage should be provided regarding problems ; protocol is needed.
(06-194) Mayor Johnson stated she spoke with the Assistant City
Attorney regarding the bid protest processi suggested formalizing
the process.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:34 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
14
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -APRIL 4, 2006- -5:20 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:30 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-159) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators
:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-160) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Lisa Mills; Employee City Manager.
(06-161) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property : 1041
W. Midway and Various Easements in Alameda, California; Negotiating
parties: City of Alameda and Alameda Power and Telecom; Under
negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-162) Conference with Real Property Negotiatori Property:
Ballena Isle Marina; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and
Ballena Isle Marina LLP; Under negotiation : Price and terms.
(06-163) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation -
Name of case : Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, Alameda Belt
Line V. City of Alameda, City of Alameda V. Alameda Belt Line.
(06-164)
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case ; Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda,
Community Improvement Commission, Planning Board, and City Council.
Following
the Closed Session, the Special Council meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Alameda City
Employees Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees Association, the
Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators; regarding the
City Manager, the Council gave direction; regarding 1041 W. Midway,
the Council obtained briefing; regarding Ballena Isle Marina, the
Council obtained briefing and gave directions; regarding Alameda
Belt Line V. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing by the
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-04,16,"City Attorney; regarding Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V.
City of Alameda, Community Improvement Commission, Planning Board,
and City Council, the Council obtained briefing.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:40 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
2
April 4, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -APRIL 5, 2006- - -5:45 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-195 ) Conference with Real Property Negotiatori Property
Tinker Avenue; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Peralta
Community College District; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-196) Public Employment ; City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Council meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference
with Real Property Negotiator, the Council gave direction to the
real property negotiator regarding negotiating process and timing
needs (no parameters for settlement) ; regarding Public Employment,
the Council appointed Teresa Highsmith as Acting City Attorney.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 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
April 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -APRIL 18, 2006- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:46 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-198) Proclamation declaring April 22, 2006 as Earth Day
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Chuck Bangert,
Vice President of the Public Utilities Board.
Mr. Bangert thanked the Council for the opportunity to sponsor
Earth Day 2006; stated that Alameda ranks number one in resource
adequacy as well as environmental friendliness; invited the Council
to visit the Alameda Power & Telecom booth on Saturday from 11:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Upper Washington Park; presented the Council
with a bag of recycled items.
(06-199) Proclamation declaring the month of April as Fair Housing
Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Mona Breed
with Sentinel Fair Housing.
Ms. Breed thanked the Council for the Proclamation and provided the
Council with a fair housing education booklet; stated the booklet
will be translated to Spanish and Chinese for non-English speaking
property owners.
(06-200)
Proclamation declaring April 25, 2006 as Equal Pay Day in
the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Jen Crook,
Chair of Equal Pay Day activities.
Ms. Crook stated the Business and Professional Women of Alameda
provide awareness to young girls; thanked the Council for the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,2,"Proclamation provided the Council with flyers that were
distributed to Girl Scout troops.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. .
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-201) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on April 4, 2006, and the Special City Council Meeting held on
April 5, 2006. Approved.
( 06-202 - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,827,937.04.
( *06-203) Recommendation to approve the Amended and Restated
Housing Assistance Agreement, Attachment A to the City Manager
Employment Agreement, and authorize the execution of related
documents. Accepted.
(*06-204) Recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for repair and resurfacing of certain
streets, Phase 26, No. P.W. 03-06-08. Accepted.
(*06-205) Resolution No. 13943, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the
Salary Range for the Classification of Permit Technician III.""
Adopted; and
06-205A) - Resolution No. 13944, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Police
Records and Communications Manager. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-206) ) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to adopt
Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Action Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute
related documents, agreements, and modifications.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,3,"Councilmember Matarrese stated reallocated funds are approximately
10% of the total budget; inquired whether a 10% carryover is
anticipated for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded
hopefully not; stated money would be spent on the Woodstock to
Webster Street Project in the upcoming fiscal year.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a 10% decrease
in federal funding from the previous allocation, to which the
Development Services Division Manager responded the decrease was
approximately 9.5%.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Karen Hollinger-Jackson, Social Services Human Relations Board
(SSHRB) Member, stated the SSHRB unanimously agrees with the staff
recommendation.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB for input on funding issues.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a one-year funding cycle
occurred in the past.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded two-year
funding cycles were done in the past; a one-year funding cycle was
used most currently; the recommendation is to return to the two-
year funding cycle.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether funding was in jeopardy.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded funding
is always in jeopardy; CDBG funding cuts are recommended [at the
federal level] every year; the funding has strong bi-partisan -
support; 10% to 30% cuts are anticipated next year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether funding adjustments have been
made.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
second year funding cycle is contingent upon the allocation; the
CDBG program caps social service expenditures at 20% of the total
allocation.
Mayor Johnson stated the federal government still works on a one-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,4,"year funding; allocation adjustments would need to be made based on
the funding received.
Councilmember deHaan stated some projects are long-range, such as
the Woodstock to Webster Street Project.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated only social
service contracts are on the two-year funding cycle.
Councilmember Daysog stated the two-year funding cycle provides an
element of stability for non-profits; he supports the two-year
funding cycle.
Mayor Johnson stated she is happy the Woodstock to Webster Street
Project has CDBG funding; the Council supports the project and
feels strongly about moving forward as quickly as possible.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the SSHRB for recommendations;
stated the SSHRB would be tapped to monitor the progress; decreased
funding is a possibility next year.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]
(06-207) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Master Fee
Resolution No. 12191 to Adjust Appeal Fees to the Planning Board
and City Council; and
(06-207A) Resolution No. 13945, ""Amending Master Fee Resolution No.
12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and
to the City Council. Adopted.
The Building and Planning Director provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that San Jose's flat fee is $1,925 plus time
and materials; she does not like the current system and would
prefer a flat fee; cost recovery is not an issue for her; detailed
accounting would need to be provided to the appellant if the City
were to charge for time and materials.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how many appeals were filed in
2005, and whether the time charged was for salary or hourly
employees.
The Planning and Building Director responded that 13 appeals were
filed in 2005; stated the average cost was $1,061; the $100 per-
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,5,"hour rate is a blended rate.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether hourly and salary employees work on
an appeal, to which the Building and Planning Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the Master Fee schedule would be
reviewed, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in
May.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of amendment) : Irene Dieter, Alameda
(submitted letter) ; Robert Gavrich, Alameda (submitted handout) ;
Dorothy Reid, Alameda; Li Volin, Alameda: Ani Dimusheva, Alameda
(submitted letter) ; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) i Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated homeowners should not be charged large fees;
the court system has a flat fee for appeals and has a fee waiver
process; she favors a flat fee.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he is in favor of making the appeal
fee as simple as possible; a $100 flat fee is large enough to
prevent frivolous appeals; cost recovery is meaningless because
$13,000 in appeal fees is nothing for a $3.5 million budget ; the
cost recovery policy needs to address when the Master Fee schedule
is reviewed; people should know that any Councilmember or Planning
Board Member can request a Call for Review at no cost; a $100 flat
fee would have people pause before filing an appeal just because
they dislike their neighbor.
Councilmember deHaan stated a fair and open government practice is
needed; other cities have recognized that non-applicant fees should
have a flat rate; applicants carry a heavier burden; the Council
has reversed Planning Board decisions in the past; developers
already pay large permit fees; he would like to review past history
of appeal fees.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan would prefer
different fees for applicants and non-applicants.
Councilmember deHaan responded that applicants in other cities
appear to be charged time and material.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,6,"Mayor Johnson stated that applicants often are individual
homeowners.
Councilmember deHaan stated California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) required projects are pushed to a higher level; a flat rate
[for both appellants and applicants) would be fine.
Councilmember Daysog stated the current rule has a chilling affect
on free speech and needs to be changed he prefers the $100 flat
rate; he cannot recall any frivolous appeals coming to the City
Council or Planning Board in his ten years on the Council:
apologized for participating in the passage of the 2004 Ordinance
stated the ordinance went awry.
Councilmember deHaan stated other concerning fees are in the Master
Fee schedule, such as traffic appeal fees.
Mayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to make the appeal
process standard.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution, option 2,
with changing the Master Fee Resolution flat rate fee for
applicants and non-applicants to $100.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]
Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda Report on the
breakdown of appeal fees charged over the past two years.
(06-208) Adoption of Resolution Adopting a ""Buy Alameda""
Philosophy. Not adopted.
The Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City had another ""Buy Alameda""
resolution; stated the first priority was to have the City do
business with businesses in Alameda; the Finance Department has
done a good job implementing policies; policies should be included
as part of the proposed resolution or reflected in a separate
resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the proposed resolution does not
include language regarding the City's internal policy and
procedures.
The City Manager stated the Municipal Code addresses a local
preference policy; additional language could be added to reflect
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,7,"the internal policies; the matter will be brought back to Council.
Councilmember Daysog requested information on the process of
bidding out goods and services stated it is important to know that
there is a competitive process and that the City receives goods and
services at the lowest price and best quality.
Mayor Johnson requested that the bid process be brought back to
Council as a separate agenda item.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on how much revenues
have increased.
Mayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council
with incorporating the internal purchasing policy into the
resolution; stated that the Finance Director has been instrumental
in the improvements made.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Council should lead the
unification of Alameda; he would prefer to have major redevelopment
projects placed on a ballot.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated that PSBA is in favor of the proposed
resolution; the staff report referenced a partnership between the
City and the Chamber of Commerce; PSBA, the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) and Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA)
should also be involved in the partnership; requested a meeting
with the Finance Director to discuss improvements that have been
made; suggested the City consolidate paper purchasing.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(
06-209 - ) David Kirwin, Alameda, inquired when the Civic Center
scale model would be prepared; stated that currently the project
costs are approximately $30 million without financing costs.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the theater cost is not $30 million;
requested clarification on the costs.
The City Manager stated that the theater, parking structure, and
Cineplex costs are approximately $28 million; the historic theater
is the largest component because of restoration costs.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the historic theater cost is
approximately $13 million; the parking structure cost is
approximately $9 to $10 million.
The City Manager stated that a model should be completed by June
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,8,"for the downtown area.
Mayor Johnson stated bids [ for the theater] should be coming back
in May; costs would be known at that time.
Councilmember Daysog stated the initial estimate was approximately
$9.5 for refurbishing the historic theater; now costs are $13
million; on-going vigilance will be needed as the project proceeds.
Mr. Kirwin stated he would like to know the cap before the project
is initiated.
(06-210) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated the public should be
advised that projects could be handled by bringing concerns to a
Councilmember's attention so the Councilmember can request a Call
for Review at no charge.
(06-211) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that Alameda should have a
Sunshine Ordinance as strong as Oakland's which aims at opening up
government to public scrutiny and ensuring that government is more
accountable in terms of public record and public meetings.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-212) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Film Commission. Continued to May 2, 2006.
(06 -1213 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated there are concerns with the
Target project; the entire project should be discussed so that
everyone understands what the entire project entails discussions
have suggested that a parking structure is being contemplated.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:26 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
8
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,9,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2006- - -5:30 P.M.
Agenda:
(06-197) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Not held.
Mayor Johnson announced that the Council did not discuss the
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - - -APRIL 18, 2006- -5:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner Gilmore - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-011) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 2319
Central Avenue, Barceluna Café; Negotiating parties : Community
Improvement Commission and Charles Carlise; Under negotiation:
Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing
from real property negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,11,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2006- - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:27 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers / Board Members
/
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,
Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 5.
Absent :
Vice
Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner
Gilmore - 1.
MINUTES
(06-214CC/06-12CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and
Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 21, 2006.
Approved.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the minutes.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent :
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore - 1]
AGENDA ITEM
(06-215CC/06-13CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel
Legal Services and staffing options.
The City Attorney provided a brief presentation on staffing
options.
Burney Matthews, Alameda, stated that he does not see how two
attorneys can handle all of the issues facing the City; the Police
Department's relationship with the City Attorney saved the City
thousands of dollars over the years; outsourcing will not keep
litigation costs at a minimum.
Mayor/Chair
Johnson
stated
that
the
Council/Board
lembers/Commissioners are not suggesting outsourcing; outsourcing
is only one option.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
1
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,12,"Counci lmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated residents
were led to believe that the City needed a fully staffed Attorneys
Office in 1937; the City has not been flying with all wings in
place over the past year; Option One seems consistent with what
prompted creating the City Attorney': office in 1937.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated she would prefer to have Vice
Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore's input; outside counsel
costs have ranged from $2.5 to $3 million; the
Council/Board/Commission have been receiving monthly reports on the
costs of outside counsel; now the costs are within a reasonable
range; the Council/Board/Commission should have a better
understanding on the operation of the City Attorney's Office; the
Council/Board/Commission should not focus on the number of
attorneys on staff but on how to deal with outside counsel costs
and the combined costs; $1.4 million is budgeted for outside
counsel this year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the costs for
outside counsel have gone down; the Council/Board/Commission should
concentrate on filling the City Attorney's position; suggested
filling one of the attorney vacancies immediately.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Council/Board/Commission would have
a better understanding on how to model the rest of the City
Attorney's Office once the City Attorney's position is discussed.
ouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated hiring from
within the City is a possibility.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City
Attorney position should be posted as soon as possible; he would
prefer to discuss filling the vacancies when Vice Mayor Gilmore is
present.
louncilmember/Boar Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of
announcing the City Attorney position and filling one other
attorney position.
Mayor/Chair Johnson concurred that the City Attorney position
should be announced; stated she would want to have Vice Mayor/Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore's input.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the process
for ramping up to five attorneys, including the City Attorney,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
2
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-04-18,13,"should begin.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated a Council/Board/Commission discussion on
filling the vacancy from within should be scheduled.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he was
willing to take his motion off the table and have the
Council/Board/Commission discuss the matter in two weeks.
Councilmember/Board/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of meeting
in two weeks to discuss the matter.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Absent : Vice
Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore - 1. ]
The City Manager clarified that the matter would be discussed at
the May 2 Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings.
Commissioner Torrey stated he did not receive any notice of the
meeting in advance.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:54 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
3
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
April 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MAY 2, 2006- - -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Councilmember Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-218 ) Mayor Johnson announced that the discussion of City
Attorney/General Counsel Legal Services and staffing options
[paragraph no. 06-244CC/06-016CIC] on the Special Joint City
Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community
Improvement Commission Meeting agenda would be continued.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06 -129 - ) Proclamation declaring May as National Preservation
month.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Nancy
Anderson, Chair of the Historical Advisory Board.
(06-220) - Proclamation declaring May 14 through May 19, 2006 as
Girls Rights Week.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Gabriella
Lewis and Danessa La Cap, Girls Inc. Members and Melissa Marsh,
Girls Inc. Board President.
(06-221) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the County issue was with
the [Gim's] restaurant building and not the wood frame building.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated that he
encouraged the property owner to de-couple the application and
delete the plans to have the kitchen equipment in the historic
building for the short term in order to move forward with the
application; the property owner would seek financing for the
improvements.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,2,"Councilmember deHaan stated there are structural concerns with the
historic building; inquired whether there are ways to ensure that
the asset stays in tact.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated plywood
bracing could be applied to the interior and corners.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether spending money on cosmetic
improvement makes sense if structural work is not performed to make
the building sound; the community considers the building to be a
historic asset; the building should be painted for the grand
opening; grant money should not be spent on the façade if the owner
is not committed to perform structural work.
The Project Manager stated the façade grant money could pay for a
decent paint job and window replacement.
Councilmember deHaan stated the question is whether the building is
in jeopardy of being lost; inquired whether the owner's application
addresses the shoring up of the building.
The Project Manager responded that the current application includes
a foundation replacement and structural stabilization; stated he
has not been in the building for over six years; the building
appears to have a five-degree tilt towards the back; the permit
addresses using the structure as a tearoom, which prompted the
involvement of the Health Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see other City
departments engaged in the process, particularly the Planning
Department.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the owner was hung up with the
County Health Department and whether the City could concurrently
process the rest of the application
The Project Manager responded Health Department requirements
trigger other requirements stated a straight rehabilitation
application could move forward fairly quickly.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether an application went to the Historic
Advisory Board (HAB) .
The Project Manager responded that the HAB issued a partial
demolition permit for up to 30% of the structure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the application was for the historic
structure alone, to which the Project Manager responded in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,3,"affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the owner has not moved forward.
The Project Manager responded that the owner states that there are
delays with the Health Department.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other City departments could
help with the process to save Gim's historic structure.
The Project Manager responded that he would work with the Planning
and Building Departments to facilitate an evaluation of the
structure.
Richard W. Rutter, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
(AAPS) , stated that AAPS voted to appropriate $500 toward painting
Gim's historic structure if the owners cannot get the money
themselves; stated he was the architect for the Independent Order
of Odd Fellows façade renovation; façade grant money was not
received until progress billings were provided.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the library project and LEEDS
required insulation is impressive; requested that a fireproof
viewing port be considered; a building in Red Bluff had a glass cut
out which provides a view of the fireproofing.
The Project Manager stated that he would work with the other
departments to find a solution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that a mock up could be placed in a
shadow box and hung on the wall to look like a cross section of the
walls layers.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the community should see
proposed alternatives.
(06-222) Announcement regarding need for Poll Workers and general
voting information for June 6 election.
Mayor Johnson read a statement regarding the election and urged
voters to work at the polls; suggested that the information be
posted on the City's website.
The City Clerk stated that May 22 is the last day to register;
election results will be available the morning after the election
instead of election night because paper ballots will be used; the
Registrar is working on solutions for the November election.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,4,"Mayor Johnson inquired whether early voters would be voting by
machine.
The City Clerk responded in the affirmative; stated the equipment
will be borrowed from San Diego and meets the requirement for paper
audit trail.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize the
partial refund of Appeal Fees [paragraph no. 06-233] was removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she watched the meeting and read the
minutes; inquired whether or not she could vote on the minutes, to
which the City Attorney responded in the negative.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on
the Minutes [paragraph no. *06-223].
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
(*06-223) Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City
Council Meetings held on April 18, 2006. Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Minutes. ]
( *06-224) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,530,239.69.
( *06-225) Recommendation to authorize Call for Bids for Legal
Advertising Accepted.
(*06-226) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for period ending March 31, 2006. Accepted.
(*06-227) Recommendation to set Hearing to establish Proposition 4
Limit for Fiscal Year 2006-07 for May 16, 2006. Accepted.
(*06-228) Recommendation to Approve Contract Amendment for Library
Artist Yuki Nagase. Accepted.
(
*06-229) Recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape
Maintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,5,"Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2, Zone 5 - Harbor Bay
Business Park. Accepted.
(*06-230) Resolution No. 13946, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 20,
2006 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. ""
Adopted.
(*06-231) - Resolution No. 13947, ""Preliminarily Approving Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order Levy and Collection of
Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on June 20,
2006 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) .
""
Adopted.
(*06-232) Resolution No. 13948, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a
Targeted Rubberized Asphalt Concrete Incentive Grant and to Enter
Into All Associated Agreements. Adopted.
(06-233) Recommendation to authorize the partial refund of Appeal
Fees to the Planning Board and to the City Council collected in
Fiscal Years 2004-05 and 2005-06.
The Planning and Building Director provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that staff came up with an approach
to resolve the issue in a fair and equitable manner.
Councilmember deHaan stated a proper decision has been made to
provide a refund.
Councilmember Daysog stated other people would be very happy in
addition to the three appellants whose fees were reduced; the
refund is good news.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-234) Resolution No. 13949, ""Approving the Endorsement and
Supporting the 2006 California State Library Bond (Proposition
81) "" Adopted.
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Library Building Team, presented the Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,6,"with buttons supporting Proposition 81; stated she attended the
Annual California Library Association and School Library
Association Legislative Day in Sacramento; Proposition 81 is a $600
million Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act Proposition
81 is not polling well; the City could benefit from State bond
funds to renovate the two branch libraries or build another branch
library ; noted over 3 million native English speaking Californians
are functionally illiterate; urged adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what underlying revenue stream would
pay for the Bond.
Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the indebtedness is taken on by the
State; stated Proposition 81 has the same structure as Proposition
14.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the New Main Library would not be
possible without Proposition 14; support is needed for Proposition
81; the West End has an old branch library and Bay Farm Island has
an undersized branch library.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-235) Resolution No. 13950, ""Supporting a ""Buy Alameda""
Philosophy. "" Adopted.
The Acting Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief
presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the centralization for
purchasing goods and supplies is being handled by the Finance
Department, to which the Acting Assistant to the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether hiring a buyer was
anticipated.
The City Manager responded expanding the responsibilities of
existing staff is being considered.
Councilmember Daysog inquired how the 5% preference would work on a
$10,000 purchase.
The Finance Director responded written proposals would be requested
on large purchases; a local vendor would have the advantage if they
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,7,"missing piece; stated the City does not provide direction.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City should encourage teaming with
other companies; a ""Hire Alameda"" philosophy is also important;
traffic would lessen with a ""Hire Alameda"" philosophy.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,8,"Mayor Johnson suggested moving up the paragraph regarding the City
of Alameda being a consumer of local businesses. stated the City is
falling short in buying in Alameda despite Municipal Code Section
2-62; the opening paragraph should include a statement regarding
the City of Alameda buying locally and promoting Alameda businesses
as shopping destinations language should be added to the last
paragraph regarding the Finance Department's efforts to show that
the ""Buy Alameda"" philosophy is not just based on the Alameda
Municipal Code; the April check register shows that $20,340 out of
$4.5 million was spent in Alameda.
The Finance Director stated that $91,151 was spent locally;
$159,000 was purchased in Alameda County and approximately $2
million was spent outside Alameda County.
Mayor Johnson stated many goods and services are not available in
Alameda; there is a better chance of a business locating in Alameda
if businesses know the City will do business locally; the City is
trying to provide an incentive for businesses to move to Alameda;
$4.5 million is a lot of public money; she seldom sees outside
businesses supporting the City's non-profits.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether a trend has been seen
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the trend
does not move positively in one direction; one month may have an
increasing proportion of payment to Alameda businesses and the next
month may be different.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution with Mayor
Johnson's recommendations.
The Acting Assistant to the City Manager summarized the Mayor's
recommendations to move up the paragraph regarding the City of
Alameda being a consumer of business, include the City of Alameda
buying locally and promoting Alameda businesses as shopping
destinations, and include the Finance Department's efforts.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-236) Resolution No. 13951, ""Establishing Guiding Principles
for the Management of the City Fleet Vehicles and Equipment. ""
Adopted.
The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Public Works' budget would
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,9,"have a line item for equipment replacement.
The City Manager responded that a separate page would be provided
which would summarize all the recommended equipment to be
replacement.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Police and Fire Departments have
specialized vehicles.
The Public Works Director responded that Public Works would work
directly with the Police and Fire Departments to identify special
vehicle needs.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether bio-diesel fuel is possible
with the existing fleet.
The Public Works Director responded he has not looked into the
matter; electric and hybrid vehicles seem to be viable; hydrogen
fuel is being investigated.
Councilmember Daysog requested that bio-diesel fuel alternatives be
reviewed.
The Finance Director stated bio-diesel fuel was considered for the
standby generators at Alameda Point; the engine needs to be diesel
all of the rubber has to be retrofitted to not ruin the engine.
Councilmember deHaan stated the funding stream becomes very
important with expensive vehicles such as a fire truck; obtaining
the Navy vehicles helped in some areas; a purchasing procedure is
needed; replacement criteria has been established with the Police
Department.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the Resolution
the Resolution defines how to get a handle on fleet management ;
suggested that additional language be added to the Resolution;
alternative fuel vehicles need to be identified; the first choice
should be electric; the next choice should be hybrid, if electric
is not practical alternative fuel vehicles would be the next
choice; the last choice would be status quoi choices need to be
spelled out so that there is a decision tree; boats are not on the
list; the City has two ferry boats and a fire and police boat.
Mayor Johnson stated the City also has a Trident ship.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a watercraft inventory is needed.
The Public Works Director stated the Police and Fire Department
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,10,"boats are included in the list, the ferry boats are not; he would
investigate the Trident ships.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Bay Crossings had an article on the
debate of the ability to construct a solar ferry; proposed
additional language to the Resolution and rewording of Point D to
address order of choices; stated he would rather pay Alameda Power
and Telecom for clean fuel than pay the oil companies.
Mayor Johnson stated that she liked the terms of the Resolution
electric vehicles make sense for making trips back and forth from
the Base to City Hall; it is important to identify vehicle use to
see what type of vehicle is most efficient; other cities have a
greater variety of vehicles.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the University of California at
Riverside has a fleet of Gem cars; Gem cars could be used by
Building Inspectors, Interoffice Mail and the Library Department.
Councilmember Daysog stated there is general excitement regarding
alternative fuels; guiding principles for managing the fleet are
before the Council; alternative vehicle discussions would be
helpful but should be a separate item.
The Public Works Director stated alternative vehicle discussions
have started.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he wants to know why an
alternative is practical or impractical at some point.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City declared itself as an electric
City in 1996; the City partnered with Calstart to move forward ;
efforts evaporated in 1999; the commitment was not fulfilled;
Alameda Power and Telecom can be the City's leader; electric cars
are not being made in the United States the electric car
philosophy should be revisited.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution adding the
following language : WHEREAS there have been dramatic increases in
the cost of gasoline and diesel fuel, and there are anticipated
continued long term escalation of these prices due to supply; and
WHEREAS the current use of gasoline and diesel fuels have adverse
effect on the environment while alternative cleaner fuels such as
electricity from Alameda Power & Telecom, bio-diesel, ethanol mix
gasoline and compressed natural gas are available; Point 3-D:
electric vehicles are the first choice with hybrid vehicles and
other alternative fuel vehicles as the second and third choices if
the first or second choice is not practical due to functional
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,11,"requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he was not sure about the proposed
priorities i natural gas conversion is one of the methods discussed ;
approximately one-third of the City's fleet is industrial type
vehicles.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether establishing the overall
fleet inventory issue would be included, to which the City Manager
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the electric vehicles
would be purchased with the Transportation for Clean Air money
The Public Works Director responded the Transportation for Clean
Air money provides only 20% funding; the funding was changed to
Congestion Management Air Quality money which covers 90% funding
and has a lower threshold for air emissions.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-237) ) Duane Rutledge, Dublin, stated that he was selected in
the Bayport housing lottery; the process has been unclear ; the
selection, points and evaluation have changed over time he has
been involved in the process for two years; he was told his lottery
number is being changed because now the selection committee does
not recognize volunteer work in the City as legitimate work; his
application was stalled due to staffing problems ; he is not
receiving clear answers or information on the appeal process.
The Assistant City Manager stated applications were processed by
the Alameda Development Corporation which had staff turnover ; the
City is aware of Mr. Rutledge's situation and will ensure the
process is clearly explained and understood.
Councilmember Daysog requested the Council be kept informed.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested Mr. Rutledge be provided contact
information.
The Assistant City Manager stated the Development Services Housing
Development Manager is responsible.
Councilmember deHaan requested the City Manager's office be the
point of contact.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,12,"Vice Mayor Gilmore requested Council be provided a detailed report
on the outcome, what happened, and why it happened.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report should include how other
applicants could be affected.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the report should address and
provide exhibits of what applicants are told when applying,
documentatior of the point system, how points can change and what
documentation goes with point changes.
The Assistant City Manager stated what applicants were told might
be difficult to reconstruct due to ADC staffing changes.
Councilmember Matarrese stated anything in writing should be
provided.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be a system; applicants
should receive a handout clearly spelling out the requirements.
The Assistant City Manager stated the City used ADC as a
contractor.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there should be contractor
performance requirement.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether ADC contracted with the City or the
developer, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the City.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should have specifications in place
when entering into a contract.
Councilmember deHaan stated the evaluation process should not have
changed; consistency is all-important; further requested staff to
review the recourse and how applicants appeal the matter to a
different level.
(06-238 - ) Mark Irons, Alameda, stated that he has concerns about
the use of alternative fuels; the process for reviewing use of
alternative fuel vehicles should be thorough; questioned whether
electric vehicles should be selected over hybrids; hybrids are the
fastest way to stop the greenhouse effect.
Mayor Johnson stated the City's electric power is over 80% green;
inquired whether Mr. Iron's had concerns with using electric
vehicles given Alameda's circumstance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,13,"Mr. Irons responded inspectors driving around the Island in
electric vehicles would not be a problem; electric vehicles have
limitations; if the country wanted to change fire engines to bio-
diesel, it could be done.
Councilmember deHaan requested that Adoption of Resolution
Establishing Guiding Principles [paragraph no. 06-236] be reopened;
stated priorities should not be set completely; the City will use
the greenest technology.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-239) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to
the Film Commission.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the terms were staggered.
The City Clerk responded the staggering would be done by lottery
after nominations are made.
Mayor Johnson nominated: Jeanette L. Copperwaite (Historic
Experience) i Kenneth I. Dorrance (Retail/Property Management) ;
David J. Duffin (Film/Video Industry) ; Liam Gray Arts/Cultural) ;
Orin D. Green (Film/Video Industry) ; Patricia A. Grey (Film/Video
Industry) ; Tamar Lowell (Water/Marina Based Experience) ; Theatte
(Teddy) B. Tarbor (Community-art-large)
Mayor Johnson stated that committees would be established.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the nominated applicants were
Alameda residents, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated only two commissions allow non-
residents; the Charter requires applicants to be residents.
Mayor Johnson stated that all Film Commission categories require
Alameda residency; a non-resident can fill the Business Association
Executive Director seat if the category cannot be filled by a
resident.
Councilmember deHaan stated he leans toward applicants being
residents.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue could be considered; she prefers
Alameda residents.
Councilmember Daysog stated that existing non-resident Board
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,14,"Members and Commissioners should not be removed from their
positions.
Councilmember deHaan requested the City Clerk to review the
resident status of other Board Members and Commissioners.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Council could change the Municipal
Code; the Code is intended to be flexible.
Councilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda Report on the matter.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter could be brought back to the
Council for discussion.
Councilmember deHaan requested the Council address commission
residency requirements.
(06-240) Mayor Johnson reported that she attended the Northern
California Power Agency/Northwest Public Power Association Western
Federal Policy Conference in Washington D.C. ; the conference is an
opportunity for small utilities to express their voice in
Washington D. C. ; Alameda Power and Telecom has to keep up on State
and federal policy and legislative issues.
(06-241) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated pending federal legislation
regulating cable companies included the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) overseeing trenching in City streets; the proposal
takes away local control; requested information; stated the City
should be actively lobbying against such regulations.
The City Manager stated lobbying against the regulations was
consistent with a resolution Council previously adopted; an update
would be provided.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
regular meeting at 9:45 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
14
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -MAY 2, 2006- -5:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson -5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-216) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.9. Number of cases : One.
(06-217) Public Employment; Title: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, the Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel and
gave directions to Legal Counsel; and regarding Public Employment,
the Council discussed hiring of a new City Attorney.
adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 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
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,16,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 2, 2006 - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:46 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers /
Board
Members
/
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-242CC/06-014CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meeting, and the Special Joint City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting held on April 18, 2006.
Approved.
Councilmember/Board  ember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the minutes.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion
which
carried by the following voice vote : Ayes
Councilmembers/Board Member/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions: Vice Mayor/Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore - 1.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-243CC/06-015CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2006
third-Quarter Financial Report and approve Budget Adjustments.
The Finance Director provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what was the
booking fee reimbursement which results in a $200,000 reduction.
The Finance Director responded that the State appropriates a
reimbursement for fees that the City pays to the County for booking
prisoners; the State took the reimbursement fee out of the General
Fund budget during Fiscal Year 2006; the reimbursement fee will be
included in the Fiscal year 2007 budget.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-02,17,"Councilmember/Board  Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of
the staff recommendation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-244CC/06-016CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel
Legal Services and staffing options. Not heard.
ADJOURNMENT
(06-245CC) There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson
adjourned the special joint meeting in sympathy and respect for the
family of Fire Captain Rick Zombeck at 9:49 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
May 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-03,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MAY 3, 2006- -6:29 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:46 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
Agenda Item
(06-246) Recommendation to reject the bid, adopt Amended Plans and
Specifications in accordance with amended CalTrans requirements,
and authorize second call for bids on an expedited basis for the
Fernside Pedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School
(Safe Routes to School), No. P.W. 11-02-15.
The Public Works Director gave a brief presentation explaining the
project must be re-bid because CalTrans adopted a new Disadvantaged
Business Enterprise (DBE) program.
Mayor Johnson stated that she is disappointed with what CalTrans
has done; the City has been caught in the middle; going out to bid
again costs the City and contractorsi CalTrans should have given
notice or a grace period; the City is stuck and has to re-bid;
suggested the City Manager be directed to send a letter to CalTrans
expressing the Council's thoughts and requesting consideration if
there are similar changes in the future.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether CalTrans provided written
authorization to go forward with the plans and specifications when
the project went to bid.
The Public Works Director responded the City has an E76 which
authorizes the City to bid; the fine print on the form allows
CalTrans to make last minute changes.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to review whether the form
requires CalTrans to notify the City of changes stated the City
should build a case and demand the [cost] difference; the bid
numbers are now public; CalTrans is costing the City money the
City should be made whole if CalTrans is obligated to inform the
City of changes; the City should present Cal Trans with a bill
rather than expressing disappointment.
The Public Works Director stated the City's DBE consultant
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-03,2,"indicated that approximately 100 cities are in the same position as
the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson stated the requirements should not change for bids
that have already gone out.
The Public Works Director stated staff tried to reason with
CalTrans; an April 14 e-mail stated CalTrans was considering the
[DBE program] change, but instructed the City not to use sample
boiler plate language provided; CalTrans implied there would be a
grace period; finding out about the change yesterday was a shock.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the documentation be
provided to the City Manager to start building the City's case.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there is nothing to prevent CalTrans from
changing regulations again; the letter should explain the position
the City was put in by CalTrans and put CalTrans on notice that the
City would like accommodations and a grace period in the future.
Councilmember deHaan stated there could be costs involved with the
delay in the project or a cost differential in bids; there is an
unfair advantage.
Mayor Johnson stated contractors put together bids in good faith;
CalTrans causing the City to reject bids is unfortunate for the
City and the contractors.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation
with the direction that the City go forward with a strong rebuttal.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Councilmember Daysog - 1. ]
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:58 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
2
May 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-03,3,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -MAY 3, 2006- -6:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese
and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner Daysog - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-017) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case
:
Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development
Company.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced the Commission received a briefing
regarding the existing litigation and gave direction to legal
counsel.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-03,4,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -MAY 3, 2006- -6:32 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-247)
Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of
Section 54956.91 Number of cases One.
(06-248) Workers' Compensation Claim; Claimant : Yvette Stairrett;
Agency Claimed Against City of Alameda.
(06-249) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding
disposition of the claim; regarding Workers' Compensation Claim,
direction was given to the Risk Manager regarding the disposition
of a claim; and regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators,
Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiator.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:50 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
May 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 16, 2006- - -7:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:54 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-253 ) Presentation by Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society of a Historic Preservation Award for the storefront
rehabilitation of the Oddfellows Building at 1501 Park Street using
a City façade grant.
Denise Brady, President of the Alameda Architectural Preservation
Society, presented the award to the Mayor.
Mayor Johnson thanked Ms. Brady for the award; acknowledged the
efforts of the Business Development Division Coordinator and
Development Services Director; stated the community realizes the
importance of preserving and restoring historic structures.
(06-254) Proclamation declaring May 18, 2006 as Bike to Work Day.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Lucy Gigli and
John McNulty with Bike Alameda.
Ms. Gigli thanked the Council for the proclamation; stated the
Alameda Association of Realtors has done a great job to encourage
biking.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve a
Contract with EIP Associates [paragraph no. 06-258], and Resolution
of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment [paragraph no. 06-262]
were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,2,"Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*06-255) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on May 2, 2006, and the Special City Council Meetings held on
May 3, 2006. Approved.
( *06-256) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,292,392.81
( *06-257) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. Accepted.
(06-258) Recommendation to approve a Contract with EIP Associates,
Inc. in the amount of $173,075 for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report for Harbor Bay Associates, Inc.
The Planning and Building Director provided a brief oral report.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the environmental review procedure
is standard and is available to any individual.
Mayor Johnson stated the staff recommendation is to approve having
the Environmental Impact Report prepared and is not project
approval.
The Planning and Building Director stated that the Contract ensures
that the applicant pays for the services.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City was the owner of
the Contract, to which the Planning and Building Director responded
in the affirmative.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated past newspaper articles have
indicated that the City could build several thousand homes on Bay
Farm Island because of the reverse commute; the review is the fifth
one that has been performed; the demand to provide public services
and community facilities would increase the tax burden on the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the referenced article addressed a
proposal to build several thousand homes at Harbor Bay.
Mr. Kirwin responded the article noted that building several
thousand homes was possible; the proposed lot size is not the
family neighborhood quality and style of Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese noted the City does not plan to build
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,3,"homes ; an application to build homes was submitted by the property
owner.
The City Attorney stated the process is long; studies would be
conducted to provide adequate information to the Planning Board to
consider the application.
Mayor Johnson stated the process is in the early stages the City
is involved because the City wants to have the consultant perform
the work for the City.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated an application for 104 homes does not
mean that 104 homes would be built; 104 homes are the maximum but
less could be built; the project may never be built because of
community and City concerns.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would abstain on the matter he
is concerned with on-going negotiations with the Port of Oakland.
building additional homes at Harbor Bay could injure the City's
position regarding airport expansion; information is needed to make
an informed decision.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he supports the recommendation in
order to provide current information to the Planning Board.
Councilmember deHaan stated hopefully the report will provide
needed information; the recommendation does not commit the City to
the project; concerns will be aired.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the staff recommendation commits the
City to engage the appropriate firm to conduct the study.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog
- 1.
(*06-259) Recommendation to appropriate $16,000 from the Curbside
Recycling Fund and award a Contract in the amount of $72,582,
including contingencies, to AJW Construction for installation of
Rubberized Sidewalks, No. P.W. 02-06-05. Accepted.
(*06-260) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$436,000, including contingencies to SpenCon Construction, Inc.
for the Fiscal Year 2005-06 Repair of Portland Cement Concrete
Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching, No.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,4,"Routes to School) No. P.W. 11-02-15. Adopted.
(06-262) Resolution No. 13953, ""Intention to Levy an Annual
Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of
Alameda for FY 2006-07 and to Set a Public Hearing for June 6,
2006. "" Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the annual assessment is only
for Park Street.
The Development Services Director responded the assessment is for
Park Street and Webster Street the levy rates are different; the
fee is collected along with the business license fee.
Councilmember DeHaan inquired whether businesses have other
assessment.
The Development Services Director responded a City Lighting and
Landscape District is used for maintenance and trash collection
smaller areas also have individual Lighting and Landscape District
areas.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a vote for the
assessment.
The Development Services Director responded the assessment was
voted in a long time ago but is not renewed annually the self-
taxing improvement assessments have an annual review process.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Webster Street has a Lighting
and Landscape District.
The Public Works Director responded the City has Landscaping and
Lighting Districts throughout the City, including Webster Street,
Park Street and Bay Street the fees are set annually; the fees are
used for maintenance, litter collection, and electricity.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City provides the
service, to which the Public Works Director responded the service
is provided by a contractor.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City manages the
Contract.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated he
was unsure whether the City managed the Contract for trash pickup
on Webster Street.
The Development Services Director stated Webster Street has two
zones for the Lighting and Landscaping District; the levy is
$35,000 per year; Park Street has one zone for $61,000 per year ;
the Greater Alameda Business Area (GABA) has one zone for
approximately $4,800 per year.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City provides other
funding streams from improvement funds.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
the City provides support to Webster Street and Park Street through
the Community Improvement Commission.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the matter would be addressed
in the budget process.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the current budget provides $74,000 for Webster Street and
$94,000 for Park Street next year's budget would provide $94,000
for each.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any funding is given to GABA.
The Development Services Director responded that GABA has not
requested any funding since she has worked for the City; a nominal
amount was provided approximately four years ago.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(
*06-263) Resolution No. 13954, ""Ordering Vacation of an Abandoned
15 Foot Storm Drain Easement within Assessor Parcel No. 074-1360- -
Portion of 24, 25, 27, 29, 125 and 152 and Authorize Recordation of
Quitclaim Deed [ID No. 16]. Adopted; and
(*06-263A) Resolution No. 13955, ""Ordering Vacation of Abandoned 10
Foot Sanitary Sewer Easement within Assessor Parcel No. 074-1356-
Portion of 12 and 13, and Authorize Recordation of Quitclaim Deed
[ID No. 17] (Catellus/Bayport Residential Project) "" Adopted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,6,"( *06-264) Resolution No. 13956, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Web
Technical Producer. "" Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
( 06-265) Resolution No. 13957, ""Appointing Jeanette L. Copperwaite
as a member of the Film Commission. (Historic Experience Seat)
Adopted;
(06-265A) Resolution No. 13958, ""Appointing Kenneth I. Dorrance as
a member of the Film Commission. Realty/Property Management
Professional Seat) Adopted;
(06-265B) Resolution No. 13959, ""Appointing David J. Duffin as
a
member of the Film Commission. "" (Film/Video Industry Seat) Adopted
(06-265C) Resolution No. 13960, ""Appointing Liam Gray as a member
of the Film Commission. (Arts/Cultural Seat) Adopted;
(06-265D) Resolution No. 13961, ""Appointing Orin D. Green as a
member of the Film Commission. "" (Film/Video Industry Seat) Adopted
(06-265E) Resolution No. 13962, ""Appointing Patricia A. Grey and a
member of the Film Commission. (Film/Video Industry Seat) Adopted;
(
06-265F Resolution No. 13963, ""Appointing Tamar Lowell as a
member of the Film Commission. (Water/Marina Based Experience
Seat) Adopted; and
(06-265G) Resolution No. 13964, ""Appointing Theatte (Teddy) B.
Tabor as a member of the Film Commission. (Community-at-Large
Seat) Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment to Film Commission members.
Mayor Johnson announced that Allison Bliss is the Chamber of
Commerce representative, Tricia Collins-Levi is the West Alameda
Business Association representative, and Robb Ratto is the Park
Street Business Association representative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,7,"The Finance Director stated property owners are billed even though
the Municipal Code states that the property owner is responsible
for applying and paying for a business license; an annual renewal
is sent out in April once a business license is on file. collection
is attempted through July 31, at which time the business license
becomes delinquent delinquent notices are sent out again in March;
parcels with unpaid business licenses as of June 30 are placed on
the tax roll; Public Hearing notices are also sent.
Mayor Johnson stated the total amount of uncollected license fees
is $5,629.28, $9,536.77 with late charges; efforts are made to work
with the business community; the City appreciates what businesses
do for the community.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,8,"Councilmember Daysog suggested researching adding ""Important
Notice"" in the top five languages to the notification.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether most of the people on the
list have paid business licenses in the past.
The Finance Director responded some are continuing business; the
majority took out a business license in 2004 but did not renew in
2005.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the notification indicates that the
owner needs to advise the City when the business ceases, to which
the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Rupert Davis, Oregon, stated he disagrees with the March 15 letter
he received; his mother-in-law had a business license [for 720
Lincoln Avenue] until 1997; rent stopped for the upper unit in 1997
because of renovation; his mother-in-lav was advised by the Finance
Department that a business license is not required if only one unit
is rented; his mother-in-law passed away in 2001, and he and his
wife took ownership; the Finance Department personally informed him
that a business license is not required if only one unit is rented;
an $84 late fee is ridiculous when he was told that he did not need
a business license; only one unit was rented in 1997, 1998, and
1999, and he did not own the property at that time; no units were
rented from 2000 to 2003; rent started in February 2004.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the Hearing.
Mayor Johnson requested that Mr. Davis's case be referred to the
Finance Department to determine whether the fee is valid.
The Finance Director stated she would work with Mr. Davis.
Councilmember Matarrese stated conclusions would be made based upon
the supporting documentation.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of staff recommendation with
direction to review and determine the validity of Mr. Davis's
complaints and research adding ""Important Notice"" in the top five
languages to the notification.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,9,"(06-268 ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$1,050,505.00 to McGuire and Hester, and allocate a 10% contingency
in the amount of $105,100.00 for the construction of the Bayport 4-
acre park.
The Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the original bidder or
challenger resubmitted a bid, to which the Redevelopment Manager
responded in the negative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the bids were lower.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the bids for the park were
lower; stated the community building bids were higher than the
engineer's estimate; staff will recommend rejecting the bids at the
June 20 City Council Meeting.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director stated he has contacted the
School District to arrange for facilities to run the After School
Playground Program in the fall; field use will be rotated;
renovation of Godfrey Park will start after Bayport Park is opened.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the construction of the community
building would be completed.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the community
building would be re-bid in the fall.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether construction could be done during
the school year, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director
responded in the affirmative.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the community building is on
school property and is subject to the Department of State Architect
standards, which are higher the original lowest bid was $730,000
the re-bid was $850,000; the engineer's estimate was in the
$600,000 range.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the renovations for Godfrey Park
would start in September, to which the Acting Recreation and Park
Director responded hopefully.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,10,"Mayor Johnson inquired when renovations for Woodstock Park would
start.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the City has
until 2012 to spend the grant money; stated Ritler Park would be
renovated after Godfrey Park; Woodstock Park would be renovated
next; the Woodstock Park design is more involved because of
drainage problems in the neighborhood.
louncilmember Matarrese inquired why renovation for Ritler Park
would be before Woodstock Park.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded renovation for
Ritler Park would be quicker; stated renovation for Woodstock Park
would start next year in late summer or early fall.
Mayor Johnson stated starting renovation next year makes sense;
Woodstock Park would not be open for the baseball season if work
started next spring.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when the park and facility naming
policy would be brought to Council, to which the Acting Recreation
and Park Director responded June 6.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-269) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there have been various
lobbying efforts to allow triple tractor trailers on California
highways ; California currently bans triple tractor trailers;
shipping companies are attempting to get the legislation through
the State; the Governor has indicated some interest last time the
issue was proposed; a subcommittee vote lost by a margin of eight
to five; requested that the matter be placed on the agenda; stated
citizen safety is a concern; there is potential for jackknifing and
major wear and tear on local roads.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore; inquired whether
triple tractor-trailers could be restricted in Alameda.
The City Attorney responded probably not; stated there may be State
and Federal preemptions; a number of Alameda streets are considered
State highways.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the matter should be placed on
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,11,"the agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated eleven states allow triple tractor-
trailers, the Federal government does not.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether double tractor-trailers - are
permitted in California and not Oregon, to which Councilmember
deHaan responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the matter could be placed on
the agenda sooner rather than later, to which the City Manager
responded the matter would be placed on the June 6 City Council
agenda.
(06-270) Councilmember deHaan stated that the City has easement
rights for streetscaping along Appezzato Way even though
negotiations are being conducted with the Alameda Beltline;
requested an Off Agenda Report on the matter; stated the City is
missing an opportunity to bring the community together; landscaping
should be done sooner rather than later; the Summer House,
previously Harbor Island Apartments and Buena Vista Apartments, is
one of the highest density areas in Alameda, with 41 homes per
acre, and lends itself to a transportation node; the matter should
be brought to the Transportation Commission.
(06-271) Mayor Johnson requested that the City Council or Planning
Board review office/business conversions in residential areas;
stated the Council set a precedent on the issue several years ago
[June 6, 2000] when a request was made to convert a residential
structure into a law office beyond a business area [2058 Central
Avenue] ; she would like to formalize the precedent previously the
Council stated that no residential conversions would be allowed in
the area.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning Board denied the
request because parking requirements could not be met and a
variance was requested.
Mayor Johnson stated the City should be clear on the matter so that
people do not purchase residential property with the intent to
convert the property to commercial.
The City Manager stated that the matter would be brought back to
Council, including past Council action.
(06-272) Councilmember deHaan stated the Miracle League provides
an opportunity to establish a baseball field for individuals with
limitations; the School Board reviewed possible fields; endorsement
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,12,"has been received from the Recreation and Parks Commission; the
City provides full range sport opportunities; providing baseball
fields for the Miracle League fills the one gap; encouraged the
City to lend a kind ear to the opportunity and move forward.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:01 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
12
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 16, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent : None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-018) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: Fleet
Industrial Supply Center; Negotiating parties: Community
Improvement Commission and ProLogis; Under negotiation: Price and
terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained a briefing
from real property negotiators and provided direction on
negotiation parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 16, 2006- - -5:31 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present :
Councilmember deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-250) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Campos-Marquez V. City of Alameda.
(06-251) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee City Attorney.
(06-253) Public Employment. Title: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel regarding
Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council discussed the City
Attorney ; regarding Public Employment, Council discussed City
Attorney employment.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:50 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
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
TUESDAY- -MAY 16, 2006 - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers / Board Members
/
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese/Commissioner Torrey, and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 6.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve
Amended Contract with Komorous-Towey [paragraph no. 06-020CIC] was
removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
[
Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
(*06-273CC/*06-019CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meeting held on May 2, 2006; and the Special CIC
Meeting held on May 3, 2006. Approved.
(06-020 CIC) Recommendation to approve Amended Contract with
Komorous-Towey Architects, Inc. by increasing the Contract by
$27,200 to provide additional Architectural and Construction
Administration Services for the Civic Center Parking Garage.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the City already spent $1.8 million
on project planning lawsuit results are unknown; further
expenditures should be held off until issues are settled.
Chair Johnson inquired whether architectural changes are the result
of community input.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,16,"The Development Services Director stated the amendment would cover
the balance of the project the City was requested to retain the
architect through construction by the State Historic Preservation
Officer (SHPO) and Section 106 processi the architect would be on
board to verify construction administration; the money would not be
spent until there is activity.
Commissioner Matarrese stated he sees no problem with the staff
recommendation since the money would not be spent until services
are needed.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how the $27,200 was determined.
The Development Services Director responded the amount was already
in the Contract; stated the money was used for the final response
to the SHPO changes the Contract was exhausted; the amount would
carry through the range of services needed from the architect.
Commissioner deHaan stated bids are back and are being evaluated
inquired whether the extra service is needed for the review
process.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
the service would be needed if the bid is awarded for the parking
structure; money is not spent on services until a project is
approved by the Council.
Commissioner deHaan inquired when the review process would be
completed.
The Development Services Director responded options should be
presented by June 6.
Commissioner deHaan inquired when the physical massing model would
be available for the public, to which the Development Services
Director responded June 20.
Commissioner deHaan stated he would prefer to hold off on the
matter until after the June 20 discussion.
Commissioner Matarrese stated he does not see any reason to hold
off on the matter; the money would not being spent; preparatory
action can be taken now; the Council should move forward with the
staff recommendation.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,17,"Chair Johnson stated the same action would be recommended at the
next meeting; the matter should be taken off the table so that
focus of [the next meeting] can be the bid issues.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether voting on the matter tonight
versus the next meeting would impact getting on the architect' S
schedule.
The Development Services Director responded she would need to
discuss the matter with the architect.
Commissioner Gilmore stated that she would like to have the
architect on board if and when the project is ready to goi it is
harder to get people on board to meet a schedule without notice.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated logistically the
matter should be dealt with together; he would abstain from voting
on the matter.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese, and Chair
Johnson - 3. Noes : Commissioner deHaan - 1. Abstentions :
Commissioner Daysog - 1.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-274 CC/06-021 CIC) Resolution No. 13966 and 06-142, ""Adopting
Policy of City Council, Community Improvement Commission, Housing
Authority Board of Commissioners, and Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority for Expense Reimbursement, Compensation,
and Ethics Training for Elected Officials and Legislative Body
Members. "" Adopted.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the policy would apply to the
Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
The City Attorney responded IDA reimbursements or expenditures have
not occurred; stated the matter would be brought back if
reimbursements and expenditures occur.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of
the resolutions.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
3
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-16,18,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6.
(06-275 CC/06-022 CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General
Counsel Legal Services and staffing options.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the majority of the agenda item could be
continued; direction can be given to hire one Deputy City Attorney. .
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the hiring would be for one
Assistant City Attorney.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the motion would be to hire
one Assistant City Attorney. .
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded in the
affirmative; stated the background is that David Brandt [Assistant
City Attorney ] moved from the City Attorney's office to the City
Manager's office.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the hiring process has started; approval
could be given to hire one Assistant City Attorney.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval to hire
one Assistant City Attorney.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 6.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the remainder of the agenda item would
be continued.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chail Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:15 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
May 16, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-30,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 30, 2006- - -5:30 P. .M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-276) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council received a briefing
from its Labor Negotiators regarding the City Attorney position.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 6:00 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
May 30, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-30,2,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -MAY 30, 2006- - -6:00 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 6:15 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
(06-277) Study Session to consider the City's Two-year Financial
Plan and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for Fiscal Year 2006-
08.
The City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.
During review of the Public Works budget, Councilmember Matarrese
requested the structure of the Public Works budget be reviewed to
ensure the infrastructure hole is not being dug deeper.
During review of the Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) budget,
Mayor Johnson requested the fund balances for funds, such as the
sewer fund.
Councilmember Daysog requested the list of streets that are being
considered for resurfacing.
Councilmember deHaan requested the list and amount for the
renovations under the ""other building renovations' category.
Mayor Johnson requested information on the condition and amount of
repair needed at the Alameda Point gym.
In response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's question regarding
prioritization, the City Engineer stated that she would provide the
criteria used to select CIPs.
Councilmember Daysog requested information on the Veterans'
building kitchen.
During review of the Library budget, Councilmember Matarrese
requested the projected amount of Measure O funds that would be
available for branch library improvements.
During review of Challenges, Councilmember deHaan requested a
monetary value be placed on the items listed.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
May 30, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-30,3,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he would caution listing items,
such as the Webster Street garage and park and ride, prior to
obtaining community consensus; the policy discussion should take
place prior to reviewing funding.
Councilmember deHaan requested that centralizing City Hall be added
to the list of Challenges.
The City Manager concluded her presentation.
Kevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, discussed deferred maintenance,
staffing levels and the 10-year financial model tool.
Kevin Kearney, City Auditor, raised questions about un-funded staff
positions and discussed the 10-year plan.
Councilmember Daysog stated where the funds for infrastructure
would come from should be clear streets ratings do not need to be
A or A+.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a disproportionate amount of
new funding for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 go to Public Works.
Mayor Johnson requested that the figure showing how much additional
funding is available for each fiscal year be provided.
Mayor Johnson requested that the numbers be provided for the chart
showing the number of full time employees.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a new ground rule should be
established to not call department head positions un-funded ;
further suggested that any un-funded positions, other than
department heads, be eliminated.
Councilmember deHaan requested the job descriptions of the
positions currently not funded.
Vice Mayor Gilmore suggested that discussion on the positions take
place when the de-authorization of the positions is brought back to
Council.
Mayor Johnson requested the numbers be added to pie charts; further
requested review of the City Charter regarding Council's ability to
approve AP&T'S budget.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority (ARRA) budget be revisited.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
May 30, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-30,4,"Counci lmember Daysog requested the rating sheets for CIPs; further
requested copies of all CIP proposals submitted.
Mayor Johnson requested the website include more historic
information in order to allow the public to conduct research on-
line; requested the reserve be included in pie chart; further
requested a goal be set to allow Alameda residents to purchase what
they want in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan requested a more defined golf budget; further
requested a side-by-side comparison with the last two-year budget.
David Kirwin, Alameda, suggested the information be put on the
website with figures attached; suggested the 10-year tool be placed
on the website, too.
In response to Mr. Kirwin's comments regarding redevelopment
funding, the Development Services Director provided a brief
overview.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the explanation of redevelopment
funding be posted on the website.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:40 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
May 30, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-30.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-05-31,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -MAY 31, 2006- - -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-278) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Association of
Fire Fighters, International Brotherhood of Electrical Works, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that the Council received an update
from labor negotiator and direction was given to labor negotiator
regarding efforts to various bargaining units in the City.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 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
May 31, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-05-31.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JUNE 6, 2006- - -7:30 P. M.
Vice Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:52 p.m.
Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
and Matarrese - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
Vice Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to approve
Employment Agreement [paragraph no. 06-283] would be heard prior to
Proclamations Special Orders of the Day and Announcements.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEM
(06-283) Recommendation to approve Employment Agreement for City
Attorney.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the Council spent
a lot of time reviewing the position and making the Contract
understandable; Ms. Highsmith will be a great City Attorney; he
appreciates arriving at a straight forward Contract which will be
easier for Council and the public to understand.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the City is very fortunate to have
Ms. Highsmith take the position; the City will have continuity.
Councilmember deHaan stated the transition would be easy; Council
feels confident that Ms. Highsmith can fulfill the commitments.
Councilmember Daysog stated residents should feel confident; stated
Ms. Highsmith will be a great City Attorney.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that Mayor Johnson wished to convey her
gratitude and excitement on Ms. Highsmith becoming the new City
Attorney.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,2,"Ms. Highsmith stated she has been very happy working in Alameda for
the past ten years; she enjoys working with the Council ; introduced
her family.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(
(06-284) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Journal had a great article
on the Library project; the article highlights the value
engineering efforts which have paid big dividends.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Vice Mayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to set Hearing
date [paragraph no. 06-291], and the Resolutions Authorizing the
Filing of Applications for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement Program Funding [paragraph nos. 06-292 and 06-
292A] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ] Note :
Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the recommendatior
to authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance Management
Contract [paragraph no. 06-289].
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-285) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on May 16, 2006. Approved.
(*06-286) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,399,404.21.
(*06-287) Recommendation to award Contracts in the amount of
$979,847.26 for Furnishings in the New Main Library. Accepted.
(*06-288) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of
$2,968,704, including contingencies, to Gallagher & Burk for repair
and resurfacing of certain streets, Phase 26, No. P.W. 03-06-08.
Accepted.
(*06-289) Recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,3,"Maintenance Management Contract for the City of Alameda Island City
Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2 - Marina Village. Accepted.
[Note: Councilmember Matarrese abstained from voting on the
recommendation to authorize the execution of Landscape Maintenance
Management Contract. ]
(*06-290) Recommendation to appropriate $155,300 in Urban Runoff
Funds and award a Contract in the amount of $643,779, including
contingencies, to Ghilotti Brothers for the Fernside Boulevard
Pedestrian Access Improvements near Lincoln Middle School (Safe
Routes to School), No. P.W. 11-02-15. Accepted.
(06-291) Recommendation to set Hearing date for delinquent
integrated Waste Management charges.
Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned about how collection
would impact individuals; requested clarificatior prior to the
Hearing date on how last year's collection issues were resolved;
stated rates were changed and individuals did not think the process
was fair.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
(06-292) Resolution No. 13967, ""Authorizing the Filing of an
Application for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program Funding for Electric Fleet Vehicles and
Charging Stations, Committing the Necessary Non-Federal Match for
the Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of Alameda to
Complete the Project. Adopted; and
(06-292A) Resolution No. 13968, ""Authorizing the Filing of an
Application for Federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement Program Funding for Otis rive/Doolittle Drive/Island
Drive Signal Coordination, Committing the Necessary Non-Federal
Match for the Project and Stating the Assurance of the City of
Alameda to Complete the Project. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he requested that the item be pulled
from the Consent Calendar to focus the public on the issue;
applauded the Public Works Director for pursuing electric vehicles;
stated the vehicles would replace polluting cars driven by City
employees and would be fueled by Alameda Power and Telecom; traffic
signal timing is critical and is a good use of funds.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,4,"available through the State procurement process; Requests for
Proposals would be sent out after the grant funds are received;
there are vendors for electric vehicles.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has received several letters
regarding cities joining a Plug-In Initiative; requested more
information on the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated complaints have been received
regarding the traffic signal timing along Otis Drive near Regent
Street; suggested painting ""Keep Clear"" on the street at the
intersection.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-293 - ) Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution 13969,
""Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year
2006-07 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business
Improvement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2006-07.
Adopted.
The Business Development Division Manager provided a brief report.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1.
]
(06-294) Recommendation to approve Alameda Ferry Service actions :
(06-294A) - Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Ferry Services
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,5,"Agreement with the Port of Oakland;
(06-294B) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
extension of Operating Agreement with Blue and Gold Fleet for the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and adopt associated budgets;
(06-294C) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute
extension of Operating Agreement with Harbor Bay Maritime for the
Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and adopt associated budgets
(06-294D) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter
into negotiations with the Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA)
for transfer of the City's Ferry Service to the WTA; and
(06-294E) Resolution No. 13970, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds, including Five
Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent Bridge Toll
Reserve Funds, for Operating Subsidy and Capital Projects for City
of Alameda Ferry Services and to Enter into All Agreements
Necessary to Secure These Funds for FY 2006-07. Adopted.
The Ferry Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore commended staff for being proactive in
soliciting public input on the WTA negotiations; stated that she
assumes that public concerns would be addressed through the course
of negotiations.
Councilmember Matarrese congratulated staff and the Harbor Bay
Maritime operational group for maintaining service levels; stated
he hopes the marketing can be taken to the next level outside of
Alameda; he is in favor of negotiations with WTA with the condition
that a baseline is set for the current service and there is a
guarantee that the service would not drop.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese;
inquired what the fare box was for the Alameda Oakland Ferry
Service.
The Ferry Services Manager responded 52%; stated he projects next
year would be approximately 49% due to fuel increases.
Councilmember deHaan stated safeguards should be used throughout
negotiations; services are hard to get back once they are
relinquished; requested more information on WTA's future goals and
services stated jeopardizing the present service level would be
unsatisfactory.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Port of Oakland's contribution has
declined significantly; he is not ready to relinquish local
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,6,"control; more information is needed prior to entering into
negotiations; he attended one of two public meetings in which ten
people attended; questioned whether the attendance was
representative of the true passions for the Harbor Bay Maritime
Service; stated he is not ready to enter into negotiations.
Councilmember deHaan stated past meetings had high attendance
regarding fare box issues; the same individuals need to provide
strong input.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he draws a line between
relinquishing the service and the negotiating process i the
negotiating process is timely and provides an opportunity to
explore conditions and guarantees.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated proceeding with negotiations is the first
step in the process and would involve a lot of public input.
Councilmember Daysog stated he would like to see plans regarding
the ferry service from Harbor Bay to Alameda Point and on to San
Francisco; he is concerned that a regional agency, such as WTA,
relies on regional, State or federal money that is not guaranteed;
pressures to rationalize operations could develop basic, general
discussions are needed before negotiations.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation
excluding the recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter
into negotiations with (WTA).
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
Councilmember deHaan requested the motion include the caveat that
there is a certain threshold of anticipation for guarantees that
the City wants, and that concerns raised would be discussed and
fulfilled.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how said information would come
back to Council; stated negotiations are timely because funding
streams are available; inquired whether the reporting back could be
structured around timeframes and milestones.
The City Manager responded the Council would be informed throughout
the processi timeframes and milestones would be provided to
Council.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether negotiation starting
points have been established; stated the points should be discussed
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,7,"prior to starting negotiations.
The Public Works Director responded some talking points have been
established; stated a date has not been set for negotiations with
WTA.
Councilmember Daysog stated he does not recall receiving any input
after Closed Session discussions; concerns were raised regarding
guarantees for both services; requested feedback regarding concerns
before direction is given to negotiate.
The Public Works Director stated a baseline should be established
within a certain period of time; WTA needs a chance to respond.
Councilmember Daysog stated negotiations could be set up by
providing WTA with some broad conceptual points.
The City Manager stated the Council would be updated in terms of
the talking points.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to authorize the
City Manager to set up negotiating dates, but not enter into
negotiations until after Council discussions.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would like to have WTA provide a
full business plan as part of the Council discussions.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to bring the matter to the Council prior to the
initiation of negotiations in order to allow discussion of the
City's position and to obtain background information and plans from
WTA.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated he was more
comfortable with Council direction but would abstain from voting on
the matter.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmember deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor
Gilmore - 3. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog -1. [Absent : Mayor
Johnson - 1. ]
(06-295) Review of Policies regarding the Naming of City
Facilities.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director provided a brief
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,8,"presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore requested an explanation on how the Historical
Advisory Board (HAB) continually adds to the pool of suggested
names available for City property; inquired whether the HAB was the
only means for names to get on the list; stated residents and
citizen groups have proposed names in the past; inquired whether
there was a specific period of time for recommendations.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded names are taken
on an on-going basis; stated requests are dealt with individually.
The Planning and Building Director stated the HAB has not suggested
any new names since she has been with the City; the original list
went to the HAB to review the historical validity of the names.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how a citizen's request for recognizing
a relative in the street naming process is handled; to which the
Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the names are
presented to a specific board or commission, depending on the area
of interest.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who updated the Official Naming List
in 2003, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded
the Planning Department.
Councilmember deHaan stated the list was not used for Bayport
street naming; the gaps need to be closed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated existing streets should not continue
with a different name is another issue, such as Santa Clara Avenue
continuing to the Naval Air Station.
The Planning and Building Director stated the policy clarifies that
the street name is to continue.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Bayport streets would
be renamed, to which the Planning and Building Director responded
there are no plans to change the names.
Councilmember Daysog requested that Willie Stargell's name be
forwarded to the HAB.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he supports Councilmember Daysog's
request ; an open season is needed to update the list he would
prefer to address louncilmember Daysog's request separately.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to have the process
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,9,"straightened out before the open season street naming is becoming
more clear; she is unclear on how facilities are named; inquired
how the process was established for naming facilities within parks
with different names than the park.
The Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the process was
recommended by the community at the time.
The City Manager stated staff would provide recommendations to
Council in the next couple of meetings.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that flow charts be provided.
Councilmember deHaan stated Council should discuss how far the
naming policy should extend.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there should be consistency between
commissions.
The City Manager stated a policy would be provided to Council while
moving forward with adding Willie Stargell to the current street
naming list.
Councilmember Daysog noted an Alameda resident mentioned naming the
Dog Park after a resident who was instrumental in getting the Dog
Park up and running.
(06-296)
Resolution No. 13971, ""Opposing State Legislation to
Permit the Towing of Triple Tractor Trailers on State Highways in
California. "" Adopted.
The Assistant to the City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated previously the City Attorney pointed out
that some roads in Alameda are designated as State Highways
;
potentially triple tractor trailers could move within the City
limits; the City would have no jurisdiction or authority to
regulate or ban the triple tractor trailers if the legislation
passes.
Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated his position on the matter is
neutral suggested Council ensure that adoption of the resolution
does not curtail progress in Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he would prefer to see the industry
remove tractor trailers from the streets and onto rails; he
supports the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,10,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other cities have adopted
resolutions opposing the State legislation.
The Assistant to the City Manager listed cities that have adopted
similar resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated truck drivers are not in favor of the
legislation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the operative clause "" oppose any
proposal or legislation at any level of government which would
allow increases in the size and weight of trucks and number of
tractor trailers permitted on State Highways"" seems to be more
general than the issue of the triple tractor trailers; the language
should be tightened to the issue at hand.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the resolution as
written; the resolution speaks to the infrastructure issue; safety
factors would not be better with bigger and longer trailers.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the resolution does not state
opposition to truck-only lanes as noted in the staff report; some
areas of the State have reasons for truck-only lanes.
The City Attorney stated currently the State occupies the field
regarding the weight and size of trucks permitted to travel on
State Highways; the resolution does not oppose a truck-only lane
but opposes any legislation to increase the current State
restrictions; the staff report describes a way around the issue by
seeking legislation that would permit private or public
partnerships with CalTrans to receive funding for truck-only lanes
from somewhere else.
Councilmember deHaan stated further deterioration would occur with
increased weight roads deteriorate quickly enough.
Councilmember Daysog stated goods needs to be moved by rail, ships
and trucks; large trucks are not wanted in Alameda; moving goods by
truck is an economic reality; the resolution should speak to triple
tractor trailers.
Councilmember deHaan stated weight per axel is a concerning factor.
Councilmember Daysog noted Sports Utility Vehicles exceed the
weight restrictions outlined in the City's ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,11,"Councilmember Matarrese stated many things have been done for the
sake of economy in the past; the language sets a stake in the
ground, addresses concerns regarding size and potential damage, and
forces innovative change.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, louncilmember deHaan stated that triple tractor
trailers probably would not be seen in Alameda: hopefully other
means of transportation would be used to move goods.
Councilmember Daysog stated triple tractor trailers are a potential
hazard that needs to be nipped in the bud; the resolution should be
more specific to the problem, not broad and opened-ended; he would
abstain from voting on the matter.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote Ayes Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Vice Mayor
Gilmore - 3. Abstentions Councilmember Daysog - 1. [Absent: Mayor
Johnson - 1. ]
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-297) Jennifer Soloman, Alameda, stated that on January 28,
2006, her daughter and husband were struck by a motorist in the
crosswalk at the intersection of Park Street and Otis Drive; it
took twenty minutes for the Police to arrive; the officer asked if
she wanted a police report; the paramedic got lost on the way to
Children's Hospital today's Alameda Journal stated that a three
year old was struck on Webster Street; drivers were not cited in
either case.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are reasons for the 25 mile per
hour speed limit; the Public Works Department recently installed
solar speed limit signs; the Chief of Police and the City Manager
will review the matter speeders will be more diligently pursued.
Ms. Solomon stated that the driver was not speeding but was making
a right-hand turn from Otis Drive onto Park Street.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the loop needs to be closed on the
matter every ambulance driver should know hospital locations off
the island; he is concerned with a twenty minute response time
requested a review of the twenty minute response time and protocol
when a pedestrian is struck.
Ms. Solomon stated she understood that the reason for the delay was
due to the call being made on a cell phone and the caller did not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,12,"indicate the accident involved a pedestrian.
Councilmember Matarrese requested information on the status of
calling 911 from cell phones.
Councilmember Daysog stated that the Police Department has been
vigilant on traffic injuries and fatalities in the past several
years; traffic related deaths have occurred on Constitution Way.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Ms. Solomon addressed the
matter with City staff.
Ms. Soloman responded she spoke to the Fire Department Duty Chief
regarding the matter.
(06-298) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated the Federal
Communications Commission and the American Radio Relay League have
declared the week of June 18 through the 25 as Amateur Radio Week.
(06-299) Duane Rutledge, Dublin, stated he received a
disqualification letter from Alameda Development Corporation (ADC)
;
all statements in the letter are incorrect; no written policy was
presented regarding the appeal process.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Rutledge received the letter,
to which Mr. Rutledge responded approximately a week ago.
The Assistant City Manager stated ADC disqualified Mr. Rutledge's
application; the letter should outline the appeal process.
Mr. Rutledge stated he received no response to his inquires
regarding details of the appeal process.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired who would adjudicate the appeal.
The Assistant City Manager responded first the appeal would go to
the ADC Board and then the Community Improvement Commission.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether Mr. Rutledge asked the ADC
specific questions, to which Mr. Rutledge responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who is the ADC point of contact, to
which the Assistant City Manager responded the Executive Director.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who would respond to Mr. Rutledge, to
which the Assistant City Manager responded the ADC Board.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,13,"Councilmember Matarrese stated the matter will end up with the
Community Improvement Commission; requested that the appeal process
be placed on an agenda and that staff ensures that the appeal is
presented to the CIC; the matter needs to be addressed sooner
rather than later.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the issue should be addressed
quickly.
The City Manager stated that the Executive Director would be
contacted.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-300) Councilmember deHaan stated that the lights are not
repaired in the Tube; urged moving forward on the matter.
(06-301) Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has received
letters stating that the speed limit is not being enforced in the
Tube.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:41 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
13
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2006- - -6:30 P.M.
Vice Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from the Paris
Hotel, 3655 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Las Vegas, Nevada 89109.
Absent :
None
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-279) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Jose Ricabal V. Yu, City of Alameda, et al.
(06-280) Conference with Labor Negotiators : Agency negotiators
:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations and
employees Alameda City Employees Association, Chief of Police,
Executive Management Group, Fire Chief, International Brotherhood
of Electrical Works, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-281) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators:
Marie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee City Attorney
(06-282) Public Employment; Title: City Attorney.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Vice Mayor Gilmore announced that regarding Conference with
Legal Counsel, Council gave direction to Legal Counsel regarding
settlement parameters; regarding Employee organizations and
employees Alameda City Employees Association, Chief of Police,
Executive Management Group, Fire Chief, International] Brotherhood
of Electrical Works, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association, Council received briefing from labor negotiators and
gave direction; regarding City Attorney, Council received a
briefing from Labor Negotiators regarding the City Attorney
position.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:45 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
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-06,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 6, 2006- -7:31 P. .M.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore convened the Special
Joint Meeting at 9:41 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers,
Board
Members,
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
and Matarrese 4.
Absent :
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 1.
MINUTES
(06-302CC/06-023CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meeting, and the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners Meeting held on May 16, 2006. Approved.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which
carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor/Chair Johnson -
1. ]
AGENDA ITEM
(06-303CC/06-024CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel
Legal Services and staffing options. Continued.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
continuing the item.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor/Chair
Johnson - 1. ]
ADJOURNMENT
There
being
no
further
business,
Vice
Mayor/Board
Member/Commissioner Gilmore adjourned the Special Joint Meeting at
9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
June 6, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- - -7:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Chair Johnson announced that both Consent Calendar items were
withdrawn for discussion.
(06-026) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute a First Amendment, adding $96,225 and extending the term
six months, to Agreement with ERM-West, Inc. to evaluate PAH
Contamination on a portion of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center
property.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager gave a
brief presentation.
Commissioner deHaan stated the game plan was to provide a report
inquired when the report was to be provided and whether the funding
is being requested for said report, including the Human Health Risk
Assessment (HHRA) and Feasibility Study (FS)
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the HHRA is a new request from the Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) toxicology department; stated money from the initial
contract will be spent to write the report for the FS; the report
cannot be written until additional sampling is completed.
Commissioner deHaan stated remaining funds would be used to prepare
the HHRA and FS, which he thought were in the initial allocation.
inquired whether all the [original] funding has been spent.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
all funding has not been used; stated there is money for the FS;
over 65% of the additional work in the amended contract amount is
for fieldwork; the remaining funds are for the HHRA and the
meetings with the Navy and DTSC.
Commissioner deHaan inquired how many additional samplings would be
done, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division
Manager responded 45.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,2,"Commissioner deHaan inquired whether 300 samplings were already
done, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Division
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the sampling would be a
different type.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Division Manager responded
the samplings are the step-outs from the twenty hot spots ;
clarified three samples are taken at each location; stated there
will be three depths at some locations sampling will be done at
twenty locations, for a total of 45 samples.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated he would not support
the motion and did not support the motion in the past; his concern
is the property use is not finalized.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes: Commissioner deHaan - 1.
(06-027) Recommendation to approve a Contract with Strategy
Research Institute, Inc. for $14,500 to conduct a survey of local
residents for the update of the City of Alameda Economic
Development Strategic Plan.
The Development Manager gave a brief presentation.
Commissioner Daysog stated the sample size is 300 150 community at
large participants and 150 registered voters; the staff report
indicates the survey would be statistically valid with a confidence
level of 95%; inquired whether 300 participants are needed to have
a statistically valid survey of either registered voters or
community at large participants.
George Manross, Ph.D., Strategic Research Institute, Inc.
responded in the affirmative; using two separate groups increases
the sampling error.
Chair Johnson and Commissioner Daysog noted just having community
at large participants would make the survey more statistically
valid.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,3,"Dr. Manross outlined sampling and accuracy levels.
Chair Johnson inquired the reason for having both community at
large and registered voters.
Dr. Manross responded the groups represent two distinct
populations; the community at large has one set of core values and
collective wishes; the electorate has a different set of core
values; if a funding mechanism were entertained, the City would
want to know where the electorate stands and where the electorate
agrees with and differs from the community at large.
In response to Chair Johnson's inquiry regarding whether a survey
done today would be relevant in a couple of years, Dr. Manross
stated core values do not change there can be shifts; however,
benchmarks would be established.
Commissioner Daysog stated if the sample is increased from 300 to
400, the cost increases from $14,500 to $15,500 suggested a sample
size of 600, 300 community at large and 300 registered voters.
Dr. Manross stated the recommendation was proposed in order not to
exceed a $15,000 budget the proposed study typically takes 15 to
17 minutes; a 12 minute study would be restrictive as to the amount
of information that can be secured; keeping the sample at 300 and
increasing the time from 12 to 15 minutes, would cost $16,000, but
additional information would be gathered; increasing the sample to
400 and the time to 15 minutes would cost $17,000; suggested the
Commission consider a higher sample amount or longer survey.
Commissioner Daysog stated the survey should be as accurate as
possible.
Dr. Manross stated an economic development and redevelopment study
is typically 400 participants and 15 to 17 minutes, which would be
his recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated the City is trying to update the
visioning process and the Economic Development Strategic Plan
(EDSP) i the City did not use a questionnaire last time; inquired
why a survey should be used now and whether future funding
mechanisms would be included.
The Development Manager responded the budget was over $100,000 for
the EDSP and downtown visioning plan in 2000; there was a 25 member
task force and an extensive community process; there is not funding
or need for something as extensive; the survey is intended to be a
periodic review, is a more formal way to supplement the community
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,4,"workshops and stakeholder interviews, and to get a read of the
community to help Development Services direct resources.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the information from the last
two meeting has been summarized and is available, to which the
Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan requested said information.
The Development Manager noted the information has been provided to
Dr. Manross to assist him with developing questions.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he would like to see the questions
once developed.
The Development Manager stated an Economic Development Commission
(EDC) subcommittee would assist with drafting the questionnaire.
Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be done with the data.
The Development Manager responded the data with be reviewed,
analyzed and presented to the EDC.
Dr. Manross stated the information gathered would be tested in the
community; there would be a return on the investment.
The Development Services Director stated the survey would be an
update to the EDSP, which provides the foundation; the survey would
ensure the EDSP stays valid.
Commissioner deHaan stated results should be presented to the
community; his concerns are ensuring results of meetings held are
included and the crafting of the questions; there is no hidden
agenda for funding streams.
Ani Dimusheva, Alameda, stated the best way to get the opinion of
the community at large is to talk to the community; suggested
holding a town hall meeting once a month at cafes throughout town;
stated a study is not needed.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation,
with the change to cap the budget at $17,000 to allow staff and the
consultant to determine how to proceed stated that he would hope
for a higher sample size; however, increasing the time is
acceptable.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,5,"Under discussion, Commissioner Gilmore inquired how authorizing
additional funds would affect the Development Services or general
fund budgets.
The Development Services Director responded additional funding
would not affect the General Fund budget stated the Development
Services budget can accommodate the funding out of the regular
operating budget for supplies and general services.
Chair Johnson stated the motion allows Development Services to
decide to spend less.
Commissioner deHaan stated some preliminary work has been
completed; requested to see the findings and the questions after
EDC review.
Commissioner Matarrese stated an expert is being hired to work with
a subcommittee of the EDC to craft the questions.
Commissioner Daysog stated the consultant indicated the questions
would be provided to the Commission.
Chair Johnson clarified the process would be to have the contract
go forward in order have questions prepared.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-028) - Recommendation to reject the Sole Bid and authorize a 60- -
day negotiation with Qualified Contractors for the Restoration and
Rehabilitation of the Historic Alameda Theater.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Daysog inquired what Option 2, revise the bid
document, means.
The Development Services Director responded staff would have to
look for a way to make the bid document more enticing to
contractors; stated revising the bid document could involve
additional engineering or architectural work to have a finite
process for the least costly approach and could take a significant
amount of time.
Speakers in support of Option 5 (Reject the bid, terminate the
project Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and re-scope
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
5
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,6,"the project) : Rosemary McNally, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Pat
Bail, Alameda; Ani Dimusheva, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Richard
Rutter, Alameda; Robert Gavrich, Alameda; Kristianne Koenen,
Alameda; Kevin Frederick; and Nancy Kerns, Alameda.
Speaker in support of staff recommendation (Option 1, Reject the
bid and negotiate with Overaa Construction) : Lars Hansson, Park
Street Business Association.
Chair Johnson closed the public comment.
The Development Services Director responded to comments.
Commissioner deHaan provided a handout inquired whether using the
parking contractor as an alternate is legally acceptable.
Legal Counsel responded Option 1, contracting with the parking
garage contractor low bidder who has not been selected, would be
legal under the facts of the situation; stated economy of scale is
possible, making the option legally permissible.
Commissioner deHaan stated the displaced contractor has done an
admirable job on the library; inquired whether the parking
structure budget would be close to $900,000 with contingency.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has provided
information on the cineplex portion, to which the Development
Services Director responded the developer has a project estimate in
excess of $5 million; he has been getting estimates; his formal
cost estimates will be in next week.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the developer has seen a major
increase.
The Development Services Director responded the developer is fairly
confident; four contractors are sharing preliminary estimates.
In response to Commissioner deHaan's inquiry regarding project
costs to date, the Development Services Director stated $3,378,500
has been spent, including acquisition of two properties.
Commissioner deHaan outlined cost increases since 2002; stated cost
estimates were $17. 6 million in 2004; today's costs are around
$33.6 million; there has been growth.
The Development Services Director stated construction costs could
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
6
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,7,"not be estimated until the design plans were developed; previous
estimates did not include land acquisition or architectural
engineering; outlined the project phases; stated project costs are
unknown until bid documents are prepared.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the handout from Commissioner deHaan
outlining budgets shows the large increase has been for the
historic theater, which is the most complex part of the project
filled with the most unknowns the other two pieces are new
construction.
Commissioner deHaan stated another option would be to decrease the
theater project to a single floor and take two floors off the
parking structure; the cost would decrease from $33.7 million down
to $28.8 million.
The Development Services Director noted disabled access would have
to be added to the historic theater.
Commissioner deHaan stated Option 5 could be considered, with
caveats, such as satellite parking areas and using the entire Video
Maniacs site for the cineplex and retail.
The Development Services Director stated most cost overruns are
with the historic theater; noted satellite parking would involve
dealing with land acquisition again.
Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates the information
from Commissioner deHaan and speakers; there seems to be support to
tone down the parking garage and cineplex in favor of funding the
renovation of the historic theater; $11 million is not the best
bid; the bid should be rejected and the City should negotiate a
lower price; he would entertain the idea of a better price being
obtained through modification of the other two components [garage
and cineplex] 60 days would give staff an opportunity to review; a
different project would probably result with Option 1.
Commissioner Daysog stated there seems to be a cafeteria approach
to the project bonds have been issued on the entire project; $17
million was identified for the project with $9 million slated for
rehabilitation of the historic theater; $17 million was part of the
$42 million bond total; the total bond will cost $100 million with
interest ; his question is how the project ties into the total bond
issuance; he is not convinced that a cafeteria approach will work;
most of the cost overruns are with the historic theater if the
historic theater is not going to be rehabilitated, there is no
reason to do the garage and Cineplex if the historic theater is not
going to be rehabilitated however, bonds have already been issued;
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
7
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,8,"the focus should be on rehabilitation of the historic theater
suggested the City consider operating the renovated historic
theater.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the City bonded for a project that
included the theater, off street parking and some retail; everyone
is looking to accomplish the project; the look will have to be
adjusted the cost of the historic theater has led to tonight ;
Development Services has come up with a way to handle costs; money
will have to be taken from elsewhere to fund the renovation project
if the 60 days do not prove successful; that he would not support
general fund money for the project or lowering the contingency
budget he does not support Option 5 because he does not want to
can the project.
Commissioner Daysog stated that he voted against the bonds because
it was putting the cart before the horse and the true cost of the
project were not understood; now the City is trying to pick up the
pieces and realizes there are no funds; perhaps everyone could be
happy with just having the historic theater.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the project has to have a contingency
fund to go forward; staff has included a contingency fund she
would not support a project without a healthy contingency fund of
15 to 20%; that she is in favor of the 60 day negotiation period
because the City will have learned valuable information about the
historic theater even if there is no contract at the end of the
period; gathering additional information is a good thing;
negotiating does not commit the City to go forward; she has a
problem with Option 5 because she would not support acquiring the
historic theater without having a plan; the City should not be
stuck with a piece of property without the knowledge of whether the
property can be developed economically; the timeframe for acquiring
the theater is sooner than alternatives could be created if the
project is rejected.
Chair Johnson stated the 60-day time period is reasonable after the
time and effort that has been spent; that she supports the staff
recommendation.
Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is that an opportunity to
review other options would be missed by allowing 60-days to
negotiate; a 15% contingency might not be enough for the historic
theater project value engineering might not work and other options
should be reviewed to determine how existing funding can complete
the entire project; all of the funding might have to go to
renovating the a $7 million loan is included because
enough money was not bonded. other options should be reviewed
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,9,"quickly.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation
to reject the bid and negotiate for 60 days with the caveat that
options for the current configuration of the project be outlined in
parallel to allow the City to reach the end of the 60 days with a
full pallet of information; the two months would not be lost if the
results are not favorable.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese and
Chair Johnson - 3. Noes: Commissioners Daysog and deHaan - 2.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
9
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-07,10,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JUNE 7, 2006- -5:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-025) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development
Company.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing
from its legal counsel and gave direction and settlement
parameters.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
June 7, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 20, 2006- -7:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:43 p.m.
The
Alameda High School Baseball Team led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-306) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution
Acknowledging City Attorney Carol Korade [paragraph no.06-309]
would be heard after Proclamations, Special Orders of the Day
and Announcements.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-307) Presentation of Certificates to the Alameda High
School Baseball Team members for winning the North Coast Section
Championship on June 3, 2006.
Mayor Johnson read the names of the Alameda High School Baseball
Team members.
Councilmember Matarrese congratulated the team; stated the team
was rated number one in the East Bay at the end of the year.
Mayor Johnson stated five of the team members have played
together for ten years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has watched a lot of the young men
grow up through Alameda Little League and Babe Ruth; the players
have become fine, young men; congratulated the team.
Couch Ken Arnerich thanked Council; stated the team grade point
average is 3.4.
Mayor Johnson and Vice Mayor Gilmore presented the Baseball Team
members with certificates.
Mayor Johnson stated the City is proud of the team's efforts and
accomplishments. she is impressed with the team's grade point
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,2,"average congratulated the team members and their families.
Councilmember deHaan stated winning the championship was quite
an accomplishment.
(06-308) Proclamation declaring June 2006 as Gay Pride Month.
Mayor Johnson presented the original and alternate proclamation
to Christine Allen, Maia Bradford, and Liz Ryan from Out on the
Island.
Maia Bradford, Liz Ryan and Christine Allen thanked the Council
for the proclamation.
Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda has come a long way the
work is difficult but progress can be made.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Social Service Human
Relations Board (SSHRB) review the City's flag policy.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEM
(06-309) Resolution No. 13972, ""Acknowledging City Attorney
Carol Korade for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda.
""
Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson read the resolution; stated the Ms. Korade's
service have been excellent.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Ms. Korade is leaving the City
in better shape; commended her for all her accomplishments.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked the Ms. Korade; stated the she
was constantly professional wished her the very best.
Vice Mayor Gilmore thanked Ms. Korade for boundless enthusiasm,
energy, and creativity.
Councilmember Daysog stated Ms. Korade has done so much for the
City in a time of profound changes; she has been instrumental in
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,3,"helping the City through dark times.
Mayor Johnson presented a certificate of Special Recognition
from Congressman Pete Start and a resolution from State Senate
President Pro Tem Don Perata, and the City seal.
Ms. Korade thanked past and present Council for the opportunity
to work in Alameda; stated the City has a great staff.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize
filing for a $2.3 million grant application [paragraph no. 06-
314] would be removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note Mayor Johnson abstained from
voting on the June 6, 2006 regular meeting minutes (paragraph
no. *06-310)].
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number. . ]
(*06-310) - Minutes of the Special City Council Meetings on May
30, 2006, May 31, 2006, and the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings held on June 6, 2006. Approved.
[Note: Mayor Johnson abstained from voting on the June 6, 2006
regular meeting minutes. ]
(*06-311) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,368,889.80.
(*06-312) Recommendation to award Contract for Legal Advertising
for Fiscal Year 2006-07. Accepted.
(*06-313) Recommendation to reject the sole bid, value
engineering and re-bid revised bid documents for the
construction of the Bayport Community Building. Accepted.
(06-314) - Recommendation to authorize filing for a $2.3 million
grant application to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
to implement the Webster Renaissance Project, Phase II.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,4,"Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) President
thanked Council for project support i encouraged continued
support.
Councilmember deHaan expressed gratitude on how well the project
turned out ; stated a few more blocks need to be completed; that
he supports the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff
recommendation
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
( *06-315) Recommendatior to accept the work of Republic Electric
for the Crosswalk In-Pavement Lights (SR2S) to serve Donald Lum
Elementary School, Haight Elementary School, Wood Middle School,
and Chipman Middle School Project No. P. W. 01-04-01. Accepted.
(*06-316) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and
authorize Call for Bids for Modular Recreational Building and
Site Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17.
Accepted.
(*06-317) Recommendation to accept the work of Zaccor Company
for the Bay Farm Island Dike - Emergency Repair, No. P.W. 01-06-
02. Accepted.
(*06-318) - Resolution No. 13973, ""Approving an Agreement for
Funding from the State of California Coastal Conservancy to
Implement Spartina Eradication and Mitigation Measures.
""
Adopted.
( *06-319) Resolution No. 13974, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for
Fiscal Year 2006-07. Adopted.
(*06-320) Resolution No. 13975, ""Authorizing Grant of a Non-
Exclusive Easement from the City of Alameda to Pacific Gas and
Electric Company within Parcel 3 of Parcel Map No. 4497.""
Adopted.
( *06-321) Resolution No. 13976, ""Requesting and Authorizing the
County of Alameda to Levy a Tax on All Real and Personal
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,5,"Property in the City of Alameda as a Voter Approved Levy for the
General Obligation Bonds Issued Pursuant to a General Election
Held November 7, 2000. Adopted.
(*06-322) Resolution No. 13977, ""Establishing a Five-Day
Workweek Alternative with Corresponding Salary for the
Classification of Chief of Police. "" Adopted.
***
Mayor Johnson called a recess at 8:30 p.m. and reconvened the
Regular Meeting at 8:55 p.m.
***
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-323) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13978,
""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment,
and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and
Lighting District 84-2."" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion
of the Hearing.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the weeds in the triangle
median in Zone 4 between Tilden Way and Lincoln Avenue be
addressed.
The Public Works Coordinator stated the median strip is supposed
to be maintained by Oil Changers; she will follow up on the
matter.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vive Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-324) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13979,
""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment,
and Ordering Levy of Assessments Maintenance Assessment
District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . "" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,6,"There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion
of the Hearing.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-325) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 13980,
""Authorizing Collection of Delinquent Integrated Waste
Management Accounts by Means of the Property Tax Bills.
Adopted.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Opponents (Not in favor of resolution) : Mark Fielding, Alameda;
Lou Bradas, Alameda Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Proponents (In favor of resolution) : None.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired how long the accounts have been
delinquent; stated there seems to be a lag in time from when
payment was due and notification.
The Public Works Director responded ACI is required to give four
formal, default notifications; stated Mr. Fielding received
three notifications; he has not researched Mr. Bradas' claim;
ACI might apply payment to the most delinquent account.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether people are receiving
proper notification and whether issues are being resolved at the
ACI level.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
delinquent accounts have decreased by 30% since last year; four
formal notification letters were sent to any account that was in
default after 45 days; the City also sent two letters.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether direction was given to
contact the City instead of ACI.
The Public Works Director responded contact information for both
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,7,"ACI and the City were provided.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City should not do ACI's work;
the City should be the mediator as a last resort.
The Public Works Director stated ACI has 20,000 accounts ;
seventeen of the fifty-nine delinquent accounts have been paid.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City required that ACI open and
maintain a customer service branch in Alameda she would be
concerned if people are advised to contact Public Works.
The Public Works Director stated the letter advises customers to
contact Public Works regarding City requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated there were seventy-two delinquent
accounts last year; inquired how many liens were removed.
The Public Works Director responded thirty-four accounts went to
lien.
Mayor Johnson stated ACI should handle the issues to every
extent possible; ACI should not be sending residents to Public
Works to resolve accounts.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested moving forward with the staff
recommendation minus the two accounts brought to Council
attention; stated Public Works should review the two cases; an
update should be provided if there are deficiencies in the way
that ACI is handling the matter; review of the process will be
ongoing as long as there is a lien process.
The Public Works Director stated a written communication was
also received; inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese' S
direction would include said communication.
Councilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the process for keeping track of
an owner's address, to which the Public Works Director responded
the address is obtained from the Assessor's Office.
Mayor Johnson stated owners should be informed to notify the
City if there is a change of address ; notices might be missed
otherwise; the City should not have to keep track of landlord
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,8,"addresses.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was ACI's generated Contract
revenue, to which the Public Works Director responded $12
million dollars.
Councilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with the lien
process; Public Works should not be involved with the process
too early.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with
the exception of the three residents who communicated issues to
Council and direction for Public Works to address the three
cases on an individual basis.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-326) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda (submitted handout) , stated
six to twenty-four story condominiums are planned for Oakland's
Oak Street to Ninth Street project traffic on Interstate 880
would be impacted; questioned why the impact has not been
brought to public attention in Alameda; exempting Measure A at
Alameda Point would increase density and change Alameda Measure
A does not interfere with the City's ability to develop housing
at Alameda Point; the term ""exemption"" is vague urged not
placing an exemption on the ballot because the campaign would be
heavily financed by developers who want to build condominiums on
the other side of the estuary.
(06-327) Michael John Torrey, Alameda (submitted handout) ,
discussed the National Rifleman's Association and gun laws.
(
06-328 - ) Jon Spangler, Alameda, commended Council and staff for
making Alameda a great place to live; noted Police Captain Brock
stopped a bike thief on Park Street while off duty.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-329) Mayor Johnson stated she attended the Mayor's
Conference in Las Vegas the Conference was informative; she
learned about significant nationwide issues in other cities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,9,"(06-330 - ) Written communication from the League of California
Cities requesting designation of Voting Delegate for the
League's 2006 Annual Conference.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would be happy to serve as
the City's representative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore noted that she could not serve as the
alternate.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would serve as the
alternate.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of Councilmember Daysog
serving as the City's delegate and Councilmember deHaan serving
as the alternate.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-331) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment
to the Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues,
Economic Development Commission, Historical Advisory Board,
Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board, Housing
Commission, Library Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities
Board, Social Service Human Relations Board, and Transportation
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated: Roberto Rocha for reappointment to the
Civil Service Board; Michael E. Soderberg for appointment to the
Civil Service Board; DuWayne A. Crone and Paulina Kirola for
appointment to the Commission on disability Issues; Judith A.
Lynch for reappointment to the Historical Advisory Board -
Community-at-Large Seat; Mark Irons for appointment to the
Historical Advisory Board - Contractor Seat; Jeff Cambra for
reappointment to the Housing and Building Code Hearing and
Appeals Board; Harold J. Holmes for appointment to the Housing
and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board; Billie Trujiilo for
reappointment to the Housing Commission; Karen A. Butter for
reappointment to the Library Board; Anne Cook and Andrew J.
Cunningham for reappointment to the Planning Board; Ann
McCormick for reappointment to the Public Utilities Board -
Engineer Seat; Michael J. Krueger and Robert L. McFarland for
reappointment to the Transportation Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,10,"(06-332) - Councilmember deHaan stated Oakland's Ninth Street
Project was discussed last November; the impacts would be the
same as Alameda impacting Oakland Chinatown; Alameda should
voice concerns regarding closing off transportation corridors.
the Off Agenda Report on the matter should be shared with the
public; Council needs to communicate with the general public;
the Chamber of Commerce made a presentation on the matter.
(06-333) Councilmember deHaan stated the Alameda Development
Corporation (ADC) controls some efforts with the Bayport Housing
project requested an Off Agenda Report on ADC's health and
welfare and how the present individuals running ADC interface
with the developer.
Councilmember Daysog stated Council and staff would be vigilant
in ironing out any wrinkles with the ADC.
(06-334) Mayor Johnson stated Disaster Preparedness was
discussed at the Mayor's Conference; federal funding comes to
the region, not to the City; requested a report on which agency
the money goes to and how the money is distributed.
(06-335) Councilmember Daysog encouraged the public to attend
the movie by Al Gore regarding the environment; stated the movie
is very informative.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 9:39 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
10
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,11,"Negotiators : Craig Jory and Human Resources Director ; Employee
Organizations Alameda City Employees Association, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and
Special Joint Meeting
1
Alameda City Council,
Community Improvement Commission,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,12,"Confidential Employees Association.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding
Operation Dignity V. Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
the Council/Commission were provided with an update and
direction was given regarding settlement parameters; regarding
Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development Company,
the Commission received a briefing from Legal Counsel and gave
parameters for settlement discussion; regarding Conference with
Real Property Negotiators, the Commission received a briefing
from Real Property Negotiators and direction was given to Real
Property Negotiators; regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, Council received a briefing on the status of
negotiations and gave direction to Labor Negotiators.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 8:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
2
Alameda City Council,
Community Improvement Commission,
Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,13,"MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 20, 2006--7:25 - P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 9:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number. ]
(*06-032) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement
Commission Meetings of June 7, 2006. Approved.
(*06-033) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute an amendment to the Master Consulting Agreement with
Harris & Associates for engineering and construction support
services for the remaining phases of the Bayport Project by
adding additional budget authority in an amount not to exceed
$265,000.00, of which $115,000.00 will be reimbursed by the
homebuilder for In-tract Plan Review and Inspection. Accepted.
REGULAR AGENDA
(06-034)
Public Hearing to consider adoption of Resolution No.
06-143, ""Adopting the Five-Year Implementation Plan : Fiscal
Years 2005/06 - 2009/10 for the Alameda Point Improvement
Project. "" Adopted.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
There being no speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public portion
of the Hearing.
Commissioner Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Annual Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,14,"Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
None.
COMMISSION COMMUNICATIONS
None.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:42 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Annual Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY- - -JUNE 20, 2006- -7:31 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:42 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Board Members
/
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-336CC/06-035CIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on June 6, 2006. Approved.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of
the minutes.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by the following voice vote : Ayes
:
Councilmembers/Boar Members/Commissioners Daysog, deHaan,
Gilmore, and Matarrese - -4. Abstentions Mayor/Chair Johnson - 1.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-337CC/06-036CIC) Discussion of Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and
2007-2008 Citywide budget and City Council Resolution No. 13981,
ARRA Resolution No. 38 and CIC Resolution No. 06-144, ""Approving
Interim Expenditures Prior to Adoption of the Operating Budget
for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. Adopted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore/Board Member/Commissioner moved adoption of
the resolutions.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the
motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
John Oldham, Management and Confidential Employees Association
(MCEA) President, stated MCEA has been without a salary increase
for thirty months negotiations have been going on for over
eighteen months with very little movement; the budget has
improved by underfunding PERS contributions from 1996 to 2003;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
1
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,16,"the City is offering less than inflation and asking for
takeaways the cost for the average Alameda house has increased
by 31%; gas has increased 152%; MCEA is looking to stay even
with inflation.
Beckie McWilliams, MCEA Vice President stated a coalition of all
miscellaneous bargaining groups was formed to explore the
possibility of enhancing the current PERS retirement; the PERS
Coalition requested a meeting with the City in May 2005; the
Interim City Manager/Executive Director met with the group to
ascertain what the Coalition was interested in achieving
subsequently, the PERS Coalition made several requests to meet
with the City; the City has ignored the requests only five out
of thirty-one northern California cities do not offer an
enhanced PERS package. employer rates have decreased with the
recent implementation of new smoothing methodology by PERS; the
Coalition feels the time is appropriate for the City to consider
moving forward with an enhanced PERS package as a tool for
retention and recruitment an enhanced PERS package would serve
to entice qualified, high caliber City employees.
Christopher Buckley, Alameda, stated the Customer Service
Improvement Team's main objective is to work with the Planning
and Building Department to help promote good customer service in
the permit processi the team is concerned that the Planning and
Building Department is adequately staffed to ensure proper
customer service; the team senses that staff has been
increasingly challenged permit activity has increased 40% and
staff has decreased; increased fees should pay for additional
staff; the Planning and Building Department has two unfunded
vacant positions; the team urges funding the two positions.
The City Manager/Executive Director provided a brief
presentation on the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 budget.
Mayor/Chai Johnson inquired whether there would be a crossing
guard at Chipman School.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded all School
District requests would be reviewed the key area is the new
Ruby Bridges School.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated there
are two deficit situations; one deficit is the streets,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
2
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,17,"sidewalks and general infrastructure; the other deficit is
unfunded positions; inquired whether the risk of not funding the
positions is acceptable.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded evaluations would
continue throughout the year.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated he
hopes the unfunded positions do not become owed, legacy
positions that are approved and funded without justification; he
would rather mitigate some of the risks, especially in public
safety; risks need to be balanced; he is concerned that the
increased revenue is on a bubble which is based on escalation of
housing prices; sales tax has decreased the ten-year
forecasting model should review prices coming down.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the matter would be
monitored continually.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that
justifying open, unfunded positions should be reviewed before a
commitment is made to replenish the reserves.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated any new or unfunded
position requires the same amount of justification.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired why
the positions are carried.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded Council authorized
the positions in the past which are currently unfunded or non-
existent; Council action is required to eliminate the positions.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the matter should not be brought back
with the goal of either justifying or eliminating unfunded
positions; the matter should be a long-term assessment
reviewing whether to use reserves to fund the positions is fine.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated current
revenue is programmed to replenish the reserves; he is not
advocating taking reserve money to pay for salaries unless there
is a disaster.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the matter is a long-term, strategic
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
3
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,18,"issue that needs to be reviewed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he was
glad that unfunded positions are not being eliminated; the
Police Department had a mass retirement in 2001 or 2002 ; Police
positions decreased from 111 to 104; a decision was made not to
fill the positions the City continues to grow; conversation
needs to steer towards funding the unfunded positions; funding
sources need to be recognized he does not want to take from
""operational peter"" to pay for ""infrastructure paul.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated other departments have a number of
unfunded positions.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated there was
concern in getting the pavement management program up to speed
and eliminating the backlog; inquired whether other funds might
be available in addition to Proposition 42.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the Construction
Improvement Tax and Urban Runoff Fund are available.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
risk of not funding positions versus the risk of keeping the
reserves at the current level is important to review.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated other City needs should be reviewed
also.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
needs should be reviewed on a risk basis.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the
sidewalk and tree management program would be presented and
whether the budget would be impacted.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the future budget
would be impacted; stated a lot of money was appropriated for
sidewalk improvements last February; she cannot predict the
exact date when the program would be presented.
Councilmember/Board
Member/Commissioner
deHaan
stated
stabilizing the Pavement Management Program and identifying a
constant funding stream would provide a balance; inquired
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
4
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,19,"whether the $1.6 million Vehicle Replacement Program is a
substantial increase from the past.
The Finance Director responded the vehicle replacement amount
has been $150,000 to $200,000 in the past, except for the years
when an ambulance was replaced.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated vehicle
replacement was neglected because of budget constraints;
inquired whether catch-up could be done during the next fiscal
year.
The Finance Director responded an equipment replacement reserve
is part of the General Fund budget; vehicles that should have
been replaced were set aside in favor of keeping public safety
vehicles current.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether vehicles would be replaced
with alternative fuel vehicles, to which the Finance Director
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated Alameda
Power and Telecom is investigating natural gas for three
vehicles.
The Public Works Director stated Council authorized the City
Manager to submit an application for four electric vehicles
which would replace three existing vehicles on the vehicle
replacement listi a recommendation was made to have an all
electric vehicle for the Information Technology Department also.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated vehicles should be replaced with
vehicles that are appropriate for the use.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated having a Managed
Vehicle Replacement Program is advantageous.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the 2006-2007 Capital
Improvement Program included anything for parks.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded three parks were
budgeted in 2005-2006; stated the parks will be improved in the
current fiscal year the Turf Management Program will help
determine where funds will be applied.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
5
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,20,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether enough money is budgeted
for maintenance; stated maintenance needs to be done and cannot
wait for the Turf Management Program.
The Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded he is
confident the funding levels will be adequate.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is
happy to see the planned Webster Street pedestrian signals;
Public Works projects are distributed well throughout the City.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated she
appreciates the response regarding how the redevelopment and tax
increment process works; citizens need to understand that some
funds come with restrictions on how the funds are to be used.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the redevelopment process
is posted to the website, to which the City hager/Executive
Director responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated that the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) is receiving a 33% grant increase; inquired
whether an increase is feasible for the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) .
The Development Services Director responded the budget
recommendation was to create parody between the two business
associations; stated WABA was raised to the same level that PSBA
was funded last year; PSBA's grant was not increased; there is
some room for an increase to PSBA.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what increase could be given to
PSBA, to which the Development Services Director responded 10%
to 15%.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated WABA's grant increase should be
brought up to 33% because of the streetscaping plans; directed
PSBA's grant be increased by 10%, if possible.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
the Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) requested
funding, to which the Development Services Director responded
not in the last few years; GABA received minor grants in the
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
6
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,21,"past.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
GABA's needs should be reviewed.
The Development Services Director responded the City has talked
with GABA; stated the City assisted GABA by paying fees for a
bike race; GABA is aware that the City will help if needed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
WABA and PSBA have different funding streams.
The Development Services Director responded she was not aware of
any; stated both associations have the Business Improvement Tax
and fundraisers.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated money
should be set aside for GABA.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated money should not be set aside if not
requested.
The Development Services Director stated the practice is that no
reasonable request would be denied.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the golf
revenue is down for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 and possibly is due to
the weather the projected budget for 2007 is up 38%; inquired
whether the increase is based on a projection for better weather
or something else.
The Finance Director responded the 2007 revenue projection is
based on an average rain year; stated the last two years had
excessive rain; the increase does not include any fee increases.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
the Golf Commission is discussing fee increases, to which the
Finance Director responded in the affirmative.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated any proposed increase
would come to Council.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what happens if there are a lot of
rain days next year.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
7
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,22,"The Finance Director responded the forecasted revenue would not
be met; stated staff would come back to Council mid-year and
recommend a reduction in the forecasted revenues.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a
large portion of the restricted reserves is for the new
Clubhouse, to which the Finance Director responded the net
assets are the physical assets.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was
the net unrestricted balance, to which the Finance Director
responded the net unrestricted balance is cash.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated there is
a
downward trend.
The Finance Director stated the downward trend is one of the
motivating reasons for fee discussion.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the golf
climate has changed.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated golf is declining nationwide; the
City cannot just raise fees to address the issue; people will go
to other golf courses if fees are raised.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a decline
in playing golf on dry days could indicate that the golf
industry is changing.
The Finance Director stated the Golf General Manager is
reviewing a lot of alternatives to generate revenues.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether
part of the revenue increase is the Return on Investment (ROI)
change.
The Finance Director responded the ROI is revenue in the General
Fund and increases the Golf Department's expenditures.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated 15% of the
reserves have dropped in the last five years; negative flows
could occur two years out.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
8
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,23,"Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated part of
the reason for building a new Clubhouse is to change the look of
the Golf Course and increase revenues.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Joint City Council and Golf
Commission Meeting is scheduled soon.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the Golf Commission
is reviewing a business plan and issues beyond rainy days.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the Golf Commission should not be
looking at the issue as a short-term rain problem; the national
trend has been declining golf for years; inquired whether the
restricted reserves would be used for the Clubhouse.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the restricted
reserves identify the actual capital assets.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the business plan should be adjusted
to reflect the current revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the ROI
was decreased currently but was increased in the past to address
the City's shortfall.
The Finance Director stated the Council adopted an ordinance
that established the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) and ROI in
Fiscal Year 2004-2005; the ROI applies to the Alameda Power and
Telecom and Golf funds; the PILOT applies to the sewer fund,
Alameda Power and Telecom and Golf fund; the PILOT and ROI
produced additional revenue which was helpful in 2005 and 2006;
the recommendation was to reduce the ROI by 50% on the Golf fund
and Alameda Power and Telecom because of the increasing General
Fund revenue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
lowering the ROI further is anticipated, to which the Finance
Director responded possibly.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the ROI should not be considered
a
permanent source of revenue.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
9
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,24,"the ROI reduction is the reason that the franchise and in-lieu
fees are down 11%, to which the Finance Director responded
partially.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated finding
money under different shells is hard work; choices need to be
made; thought should be given to applying future redevelopment
revenues to positions and programs a plan is needed for dealing
with the public safety shortfall.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
City is taking a step in undoing some of the tangle with State
takeaways; he is concerned with the direction of sales tax
revenues and living on the bubble of the property and transfer
tax; the City needs to be vigilant and careful; staffing,
benefits, and deferred maintenance need to be reviewed in the
ten-year forecast; evaluation should be done at mid-term; focus
should be on the need first applying incoming revenues to the
reserve should be discretionary; damaged infrastructure that
provides the highest risk to individuals should be reviewed;
sidewalk maintenance should be reviewed closely because of trips
and falls.
Mayor/Chair Johnson thanked the City Manager/Executive Director
and staff for an informative and clear budget stated she
appreciates that the budget was put together strategically;
goals and long-term issues were addressed; she hopes that the
residents learn that the budget is a matter of balancing
employees' work is appreciated; employee's issues will be
considered.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the budget
shows a positive movement the City is not completely out of the
woods; the City Manager/Executive Director made some monumental
steps to fill required positions and to address needs that have
not been met in the last four years.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the last
two-year budget addressed cutting programs and positions which
would minimally impact services to the residents; the City is
now looking at adding services and positions and has come a long
way; thanked everyone for working very hard on the budget.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated funding
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
10
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,25,"should be applied to Lincoln Avenue between Eighth Street and
Grand Avenue if the purple line on the Public Works map is for
streets the streets are covered with tar and are not
attractive.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated staff should make assessments on the
greatest need, not cosmetics.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated streets
are paved along Grand Avenue from Lincoln Avenue to Park Street;
streets are unpaved west of Grand Avenue.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated Public Works
identified the streets that need the most attention; she would
prefer to drive down tarred streets rather than streets with
potholes.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated Interim City Manager Bill Norton
started the crack sealing program.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated money has
been dedicated to repair unused streets.
The Public Works Director stated the Pavement Management Program
prioritizes the needs based on the street condition and not
traffic; a resurfacing Contract has already been authorized.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
crack sealing is still done, to which the Public Works Director
responded slurry sealing is done.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated crack sealing should continue in
order to prevent further damage until slurry sealing can be
done.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated he is not
opposed to crack sealing.
The Public Works Director stated some streets are crack and
slurry sealed to extend the life longer sealing is the most
cost-effective way to spend the money.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City
has crack sealing equipment.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
11
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,26,"The Public Works Director stated that the City borrowed the
equipment i work was performed by City staff.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he does
not want to see crack sealing disappear.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated crack sealing needs to be funded.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he
attended Alameda Power and Telecom's budget meeting; direction
has been taken to lower the overall operating cost; management
would like to reduce the operating cost even lower.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether or not other maintenance
issues would be addressed.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded the focus is to
have a very comprehensive maintenance approach; stated staff is
dedicated to applying funds to infrastructure.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he eagerly
looks forward to the sidewalk and tree program.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
tree portion is critical.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the budget would come
back to Council for approval on July 5.
(06-338CC/06-037CIC)
Discussion of City Attorney/General
Counsel Legal Services and staffing options.
The City Attorney/Lega Counsel provided a brief presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the analyst position for
the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) update would have an end.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the initial part of
the project has an end; stated an on-going effort would continue
to monitor meeting the ADA Transition Plan's goals.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired why the work could not be
contracted out.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
12
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,27,"The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a consultant would be
hired to prepare an update to the existing ADA Transition Plan;
City staff would need to coordinate efforts.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated she is not sure whether a full time
person is needed to work with an outside consultant.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the
position would do other risk assessments that might preclude the
City from spending money on outside counsel when sued.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative;
stated the past Administrative Management Analyst position
assists the Risk Manager, reviews and investigated all claims,
and makes recommendations.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how many employees are in Risk
Management, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded
two full-time positions Risk Manager and support staff.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated updating the ADA
Transition Plan is very staff intensive.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the job responsibility
would include claim review.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative;
stated some safety services could be reinstated.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what type of safety services would
be reinstated.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded a safety committee
would review workplace safety with the intent to reduce
workplace injuries.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated the person would work
in a pro-active mode rather than reacting to claims.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether another department could
handle the work.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
13
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,28,"stated the Administrative Analyst position would provide a lot
of
bang for the buck; the person would provide the ADA
Transition Plan oversight, risk management services, and safety
services.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated there
is an advantage to having the position in the City Attorney's
office because of internal audit functions; Option 3 provides
advantages.
Mayor/Chair Johnson suggested filling the Risk Management
Analyst position and holding off on hiring another attorney to
see how one City Attorney and two staff attorneys work; stated
the City needs to provide legal services in the most efficient
way possible.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City
Attorney's office has been working with three attorneys over the
last several months and the situation has been an issue.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
teaching safety should be handled through Human Resources;
further inquired who is taking care of workers compensation.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded Risk Management
handles workers compensation.
louncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the City
Attorney/Legal Counsel's latitude is very limited.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated she hired an attorney to
start July 5.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated looking
into hiring an additional attorney might be appropriate.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of
hiring another staff attorney.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese clarified that
the motion is to have the staffing level of the City Attorney
and three staff attorneys; the Risk Management Analyst position
would be held in abeyance.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
14
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-06-20,29,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner inquired whether the Risk
Management Analyst position would be brought back to Council
with more detail, to which the City Manager/Executive Director
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how many employees are in the City
Attorney's office, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel
responded seven.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether all seven employees are
full time, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in
the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the City Attorney's office
had any part-time staff, to which the City Attorney/Legal
Counsel responded a law clerk.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the seven employees include
the attorney starting in July.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the new attorney would
bring staffing up to eight tonight's authorization will bring
the City Attorney and Risk Management staffing level to nine.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese requested that
an organizational chart be provided when the matter returns to
Council.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned
the Special Joint Meeting at 11:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda Reuse
15
and Redevelopment Authority, and
Community Improvement Commission
June 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-06-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY -JULY 5, 2006- - -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:52 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
(06-342) - Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to
appoint Rebecca A. Kozak [paragraph no. 06-349] was withdrawn from
the agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-343) Welcoming of new Police Chief, Walter Tibbet.
The City Manager introduced the new Police Chief and the City Clerk
administered the Oath of Office.
Police Chief Tibbet thanked Council for the opportunity to serve as
Police Chief and introduced his family.
06-344) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired why there was only one bidder for each
of the three individual Information Technology Contracts.
The Project Manager stated the Contracts were sole source Contracts
for Library technology.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the three Contracts came in on
budget.
The Project Manager responded the Contracts came in $200,000 less
than expected; stated the furniture Contract came in lower also;
the total savings would probably take care of all contingency
requirements.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project is on time and on budget ;
inquired whether $1 million of the $2 million Measure O money would
be spent.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,2,"The Project Manager responded the Measure O reserve for the branch
budget is approximately $1.5 million at this time stated over $2
million should return to Measure O funds for branch improvements.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether some redevelopment bond money
was used.
The Project Manager responded $2 million of redevelopment money was
allocated to the project; $1 million went into funding the
construction contract immediately.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the other $1 million
earmarked for the project would go back to redevelopment.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; further stated
$670,000 in Measure O funding would be earmarked for the main
branch until the State audit is completed, which should occur in
December.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Project Manager for the project being on
time and on budget.
The Project Manager stated another tour of the building should take
place next month.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendatior to accept the Park
Street Clock [paragraph no. 06-347 ] was removed from the Consent
Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
( *06-345 - ) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on June
20, 2006. Approved.
(*06-346) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,209,974.98
(06-347) Recommendation to accept the Park Street Clock donated by
Frank and Debbie George, Pillow Park Plaza owners.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,3,"Mayor Johnson thanked the George's for the beautiful clock; stated
the George's wanted to donate the clock for many years; the clock
adds to Park Street's character and appearance.
Debbie George thanked Development Services for handling the process
swiftly and professionally.
Mayor Johnson requested that the City hold a dedication ceremony
and install a plaque recognizing the George's.
Frank George thanked Council and the community.
By consensus, the motion carried by unanimous vote - 5.
(*06-348) Recommendation to award Contracts [with
Veicon
Technology, Inc. and Sirsi Corporation DBA SirsiDynix] in the
amount of $417,445.56 for Information Technology in the New Main
Library. Accepted.
(06-349) Recommendation to appoint Rebecca A. Kozak to the Bay
Area Library and Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board.
Withdrawn.
(*06-350) Resolution No. 13982, ""Calling for a General Municipal
Election to be Consolidated with the Statewide General Election, to
be Held in the City of Alameda on Tuesday, November 7, 2006 and
Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to Permit the
County Clerk/Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to
the City Relating to the Conduct of Said Election. "" Adopted.
(*06-351) Resolution No. 13983, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Grant Contract between the State of California
Department of Boating and Waterways and the Alameda Police
Department. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-352 - ) Resolution No. 13984, ""Reappointing Roberto Rocha to the
Civil Service Board. Adopted;
(06-352A) Resolution No. 13985, ""Appointing Michael E. Soderberg to
the Civil Service Board. "" Adopted;
(06-352B) Resolution No. 13986, ""Appointing DuWayne A. Crone to the
Commission on Disability Issues. "" Adopted;
(06-352C) Resolution No. 13987, ""Appointing Paulina Kirola to the
Commission on Disability Issues. "" Adopted;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,4,"(06-352D) Resolution No. 13988, ""Reappointing Judith A. Lynch to
the Historical Advisory Board - Community-at-Large Seat. Adopted;
(06-352E) Resolution No. 13989, ""Appointing Mark Irons to the
Historical Advisory Board - Contractor Seat. "" Adopted;
(06-352F) Resolution No. 13990, ""Reappointing Jeff Cambra to the
Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Adopted;
(06-352G) Resolution No. 13991, ""Appointing Harold J. Holmes to the
Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board. Adopted;
(06-352H) Resolution No. 13992, ""Reappointing Billie Trujillo to
the Housing Commission. "" Adopted;
(06-352I) Resolution No. 13993, ""Reappointing Karen A. Butter to the
Library Board. Adopted;
(06-352J) Resolution No. 13994, ""Reappointing Anne Cook to the
Planning Board. "" Adopted;
(06-352K) Resolution No. 13995, ""Reappointing Andrew J. Cunningham
to the Planning Board. Adopted;
(06-352L) Resolution No. 13996, ""Reappointing Ann McCormick to the
Public Utilities Board - Engineer Seat. Adopted;
(06-352M) Resolution No. 13997, ""Reappointing Michael J. Kreuger to
the Transportation Commissioner. Adopted; and
(06-352N) Resolution No. 13998, ""Reappointing Robert L. McFarland
to the Transportation Commission."" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented
certificates to Board and Commission members.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Board and Commission members for their
willingness to serve.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-353) The following speakers discussed Measure A: Former
Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Karen Butter, League of Women
Voters (submitted letter) ; Arthur Lipow, Alameda Public Affairs
Program; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda; Helen Sause,
Housing Opportunities Makes Economic Sense (HOMES) ; Pat Gannon,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,5,"Alameda Doug Biggs, Alameda; Reyla Graber, Alameda i Nita Rosen,
Alameda; Denise Brady, Alameda; Former Councilmember Lil Arnerich,
Alameda.
(06 - 354) Duane Rutledge, Dublin, discussed his appeal process
regarding the housing lottery at Bayport.
(06-355) Robert Sikora, Alameda, discussed the Plug in Partners
program and the environment.
(06-356) David Kirwin, Alameda, raised questions about the Buy
Alameda campaign.
Mayor Johnson suggested Mr. Kirwin speak to the Finance Director.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-357) louncilmember Matarrese requested an explanation of the
process for the Bayport Housing lottery; inquired when Mr.
Rutledge's case would reach an end.
The Development Services Director outlined the processi stated
staff received Mr. Rutledge's appeal and would review the matter;
if Mr. Rutledge disagrees with the staff ruling, he could appeal to
the Community Improvement Commission; noted the process to provide
information regarding the rules is being clarified.
(06-358) Councilmember Matarrese inquired when the clean air
inventory resolution would be on the Council agenda, to which the
City Manager responded July 18, 2006.
Councilmember Matarrese requested the resolution include Alameda
Power & Telecom's action regarding Plug in Partners.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:59 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
5
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,6,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA, , AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JULY 5, 2006- - -5:30 P. M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Board
Members
/
Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor/Chail Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider
ARRA Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property : Alameda
Naval Air Station; Negotiating parties ARRA and Navy ; Under
negotiation Price and terms.
(06-339CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-340CC) Conference with Property Negotiators; Property:
Fruitvale Railroad Bridge Negotiating parties City of Alameda
and Army Corp. of Engineers Under negotiation: Price
and
terms.
***
Mayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:40 p.m. to hold the
Regular Meeting and reconvened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:56
p.m.
(06-038CIC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation;
Name of case : Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores
Development Company .
(06-341CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9; Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,7,"reconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Alameda
Naval Air Station, direction was given to Real Property
Negotiators; regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, Council
received a briefing from Labor Negotiators and gave direction on
settlement parameters; regarding Fruitvale Railroad Bridge, Council
received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators and gave
direction to Negotiatori regarding Existing Litigation, the CIC
received a briefing from Leal Counsel and gave direction on
settlement parameters; and regarding Anticipated Litigation,
Council received briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 12:30 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The Agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,8,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,
ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- -JULY 5, 2006- - -7:31 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present :
Councilmember/Board Members/Commissioners
Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-359CC/06-039CIC)
Minutes of the Special Joint City Council,
Community Improvement Commission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority, and Housing Authority Board of Commissioners Meeting
held on June 20, 2006, and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement
Commission Meeting held on June 20, 2006. Approved.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of
the minutes.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,
which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-360CC/06-040CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel
Legal Services and staffing options.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated she was reluctant to add positions; the
Administrative Management Analyst's duties are a Council priority;
she does not want to increase staff, but there is a rational for
the position; freezing positions was not done strategically in the
past; expanding the number of employees is not the intended
direction even if the  ouncil/Commission decides to fill the
position; reviewing staffing levels is a long-term process.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he has
concerns about filling the position; the task should be handled by
various departments. he is still working through the process of
where the position sits; he prefers to have the position closer to
the operational side; he is concerned with the job title;
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
1
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,9,"Management Analyst would be more appropriate; he realizes there is
a deficit.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there should be a review on whether Risk
Management should be in the City Attorney's office.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated there is an
immediate need; an organizational chart was requested; inquired
whether the matter could be held over for one more meeting.
The City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative;
stated the position is in the recommended budget i the matter could
be held over, and no action would be taken.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated holding the
matter over would provide an opportunity for additional review.
Mayor/Chair Johnson requested an explanation of the position's
duties and a review on how other cities handle workers'
compensation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan concurred with
Mayor/Chair Johnson.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore noted the staff report
states that the position is not a General Fund position; inquired
whether the position actually would be a General Fund position
because other departments funded by the General Fund would pay for
the position, to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded in
the affirmative.
The City Manager/Executive Director stated a portion comes from
other funds as well.
Mayor/Chair Johnson and Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner
Matarrese suggested continuing the matter.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan concurred with
Mayor/Chair Johnson and Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner
Matarrese with the caveat that the position not be excluded from
the budget.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated on-going, strategic review is needed.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the
Council/Commission needs to be provided with an organization chart,
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
2
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,10,"an outline of other duties the position might serve, and a rational
for the position being where it is now along with some possible
alternatives when the matter returns.
(06-361CC) Resolution No. 13999, ""Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Appropriating
Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year.
""
Adopted;
( (06-041CIC) Resolution No. 06-145, ""Approving and Adopting the
Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Appropriating
Certain Moneys for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year.
""
Adopted; and
ARRA Resolution No. 38, ""Approving and Adopting the Operating
Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and Appropriating Certain Moneys
for the Expenditures Provided in Said Fiscal Year. "" Adopted.
The City Manager/Executive Director provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the budget
was presented very clearlyi he is concerned about the General Fund
revenue; requested that revenue increases or decreases above or
below projections be categorized as reliable or unreliable at the
sales tax mid-year review; stated the sales tax is still lagging
and should be watched carefully; revenue increases or decreases can
be included in the ten-year modeling and projections to evaluate
how to adjust expenditures moving forward.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether information was available on
sales tax projections.
The Finance Director responded the June quarterly report should be
received by the first of August; the Sales Tax Consultant prepares
the analogies and summary results; she would try to get the reports
sooner.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated there is a commitment to continue with
conservative budgets; the budget increase is less than projected
growth in revenue; an Alameda Power and Telecom briefing has not
been done.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether a
joint meeting has been scheduled with the Golf Commission.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded various joint
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
3
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,11,"meetings would be scheduled.
Vice
Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested an
explanation for the loss in Golf revenue in Fiscal Year 1996-1997;
stated that she is concerned with redoing the Clubhouse; money has
been made in only five of the past ten years
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan commended staff for
putting the budget together in a good, orderly manner stated all
golf courses have had a steady down trend; coming out of
construction and into operation is an important phase for Alameda
Power and Telecom; competitiveness makes it more difficult to break
even; enterprise areas have been successful in the past; the
Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA) would like to request
funding as part of the mid-year budget review; GABA has extended
membership to Harbor Bay; the ten-year forecast is extremely
important to ensure key elements are addressed; requested that the
ten-year forecast tool come to the Council in the next month or
two; the ten-year forecast does not need to be completely refined;
suggested reviewing possible funding streams for a $20,000 to
$30,000 initial analysis of the auxiliary pumping system; further
stated: that he is looking forward to sidewalk and tree discussions
by mid-year review; programs should be put in the needed state of
repair if additional funding materializes; he appreciates the
Police and Fire Department's attrition concerns i he would like to
have a better understanding of attrition taking place over the next
two or three years, including forecasting.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore requested information
on how the City has been impacted by the Metropolitan Golf Course
in terms of playing and the banquet facility.
Mayor/Chair Johnson responded the banquet facility is very small.
Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated the banquet
facility is being expanded to accommodate 200 people.
Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that San
Leandro's banquet facility is very small; the good news is that the
rainy season is over; Jim's has been fairly successful at the golf
course; Jim's serves the same menu as the restaurant on Lincoln
Avenue.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated discussion on the proposed, new
Clubhouse should be addressed at a joint meeting; suggested that
the turf management plan be renamed the turf/field management plan.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
4
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,12,"Counci lmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the current
budget process was seamless and transparent; three components are
involved with approving the operating budget : City Council,
Community Improvement, and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment
Authority; that he is not ready to endorse shifting from
retail/office redevelopment to residential redevelopment [at the
Fleet Industrial Supply Center], which has a $6.9 million cost;
suggested that the resolutions be adopted separately.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget adoption should move forward
and the Alameda Power and Telecom briefing should be scheduled.
Councilmember/Boar Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated a follow-
up joint meeting [with the Public Utilities Board] is needed to
address unanswered, time-dependent assessment and evaluation
questions raised at the last joint meeting.
Mayor/Chair Johnson stated scheduling a joint meeting might take
longer ; scheduling a briefing first would allow for better
preparation; both a briefing and joint meeting should be scheduled.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether
quarterly reports are provided.
The City Manager/Executive Director responded that information
provided to the Public Utilities Board would be shared.
Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated quarterly
reports should be the minimum key indicators need to be reviewed.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the City Council
resolution.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Commissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Community Improvement
Commission resolution.
Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner Daysog
- 1.
Board Member Daysog moved adoption of the Alameda Reuse and
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
5
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,13,"Redevelopment Authority resolution.
Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:36 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
6
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
and Community Improvement Commission
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,14,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -JULY 5, 2006- -7:32 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 9:37 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-042) Minutes of the Annual Community Improvement Commission
Meeting held on June 20, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-043 ) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to
execute a Contract in the amount of $840,000.00 with Bellecci and
Associates for plans, specifications, and engineering for the
Tinker/Webster Extension Project (Tinker Extension Design CIP
Project No. 04-105)
.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired why no other bidders are listed for
the project.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the project went out to bid in
1999 and received two or three bids; stated the Contract was
awarded to Bellecci and Associates and then was put on hold.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the project was not re-bid.
The Redevelopment Manager responded Bellecci and Associates has
been working on the project; stated the City entered into a $74,000
Contract to complete the project report for CalTrans.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether restarting with another
firm would not be cost-effective.
The Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
Bellecci and Associates developed all the base drawings.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the City owns the base
drawings, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,15,"affirmative.
Chair Johnson inquired whether 1999 figures were being used, to
which the Redevelopment Manager responded the figures were revised.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $840,000 figure was
submitted in 1999.
The Redevelopment Manager responded the figure was close to
$840,000; Public Works decided to complete only 65% or 75% of the
design drawings because of budget problems at the time Public
Works reduced the scope of work.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the scope of work was reduced
then or now, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded then.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the scope of work had been
increased, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Chair Johnson stated re-bidding is a matter of fairness.
The Public Works Director stated Bellecci and Associates is the
most knowledgeable firm; another engineering firm would need to
become familiar with the design.
Chair Johnson stated the issue is a matter of compliance with the
competitive bidding process.
The Public Works Director stated staff is trying to expedite the
project; timelines are tied to another project.
Chair Johnson stated the City is obligated to be fair and comply
with the bidding process.
Commissioner Daysog noted the City put the project on hold.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the City approved the Contract in 1999,
the project was put on hold in 2002; the project restarted in 2005;
inquired why the Contract did not come back to the Commission in
2005.
The Public Works Director responded there still was money in the
Contract.
The Redevelopment Manager stated the City has a Contract with
Bellecci and Associates for the project report but does not have a
Contract for plans, specifications, and engineering.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,16,"Commissioner Daysog stated the project was put on hold because of
the City's policy decisions regarding retail.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the bid was put out , but the Contract
was not executed; the City is now considering awarding an $840,000
Contract without a bidding process.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the price and scope are the
same as in 1999, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded the
price is the same but the scope was reduced in 1999.
Commissioner deHaan stated the matter should return at another
meeting the original Contract and background should be provided.
The Development Services Director stated staff could come back to
the Commission with additional information; it is important to not
lose embedded data; the engineers constantly work with the City;
continuity should be discussed before changes are made.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the explanation provided by the
Development Services Director was what he was seeking.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the staff report does not address
continuity or amount of the Contract.
Chair Johnson inquired whether waiting two weeks causes a detriment
or whether moving forward tonight would be better.
The Development Services Director responded that she would be happy
to provide additional information to the Commission.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the cost of switching to
another firm exceeds the amount of savings.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the staff recommendation is the best and only way to go.
Chair Johnson stated the Commission should move forward with the
staff recommendation.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether knocking down the walls of the
Tube would be analyzed.
The Redevelopment Manager responded Public Works provided a report
to the Commission on the matter.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-05,17,"Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated the project had a lot
of miscues; he has no idea how much money has been spent or what
was the original bid amount; staff reports need to be detailed.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners Daysog, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions Commissioner deHaan - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:56 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
July 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
FRIDAY - -JULY 14, 2006- -10:00 - A.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:15 a.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
and Chair Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Commissioner Daysog - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-044)
Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case :
Community Improvement Commission V. Cocores Development
Company.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that direction was given to Legal
Counsel to settle the eminent domain lawsuit within specified
parametersi stated the Commission is happy to announce that the
litigation has been settled and the Commission will purchase the
historic Alameda property for $3.2 million, which is inclusive of
all costs and interest; the stipulated judgment is expected to be
signed by the Judge on Friday, July 21, at which time the document
will be a public record.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 11:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 18, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:42 p.m. Boy Scout
Troop 73 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmember Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-365) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association
(PSBA) on the 22nd Annual Art and Wine Faire.
Blake Brydon, Art and Wine Faire Chair, presented glasses to the
Mayor and Council invited everyone to the Faire.
(06-366) Presentation to the Fourth of July Parade Committee
recognizing their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July
Parade.
Mayor Johnson thanked the committee for the hard work; stated the
committee helps to financially support school bands.
Barbara Price, Fourth of July Parade Committee Chair, presented T-
shirts to the Mayor and Council; introduced the committee members ;
stated $31,000 was raised.
Mayor Johnson stated there was a picnic at Rittler Park after the
parade for the Coast Guard and family members presented
certificates to committee members.
(06-367) Presentation regarding the World Masters Swim
Championship to be held on August 11, 2006
Linda Gilcrist and Paul White submitted a handout; outlined the
event's activities and encouraged anyone interested to volunteer.
(06-368) Presentation and update on Alameda Development
Corporation.
Gregg Fujita, Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) President,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,2,"introduced Board Members and gave a brief presentation.
Dan Lachman, ADC Executive Director, thanked Development Services
for all their efforts; provided an update on the 626 Buena Vista
Avenue project; invited everyone to the November 2006
groundbreaking outlined upcoming projects.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
(*06-369) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission
Meetings held on July 5, 2006, and the Regular City Council Meeting
held on July 5, 2006. Approved.
(*06-370) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,523,936.31.
( *06-371) Resolution No. 14000, ""Amending Resolution No. 9460 to
Reflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City
of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution
No. 13906. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-372) Discussion of City Attorney staffing options and request
to hire an Administrative Management Analyst.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of hiring an Administrative
Management Analyst.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-373) Resolution No. 14001, ""Participating in the International
Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Cities for
Climate Protection Campaign and Creation of a City Task Force. ""
Adopted; and
(06-373A) Resolution No. 14002, ""Providing Support for Policies
that Promote the Development and Commercialization of Plug-In -
Hybrid Electric Vehicles as a Participant in the Plug-In Partners
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,3,"National Campaign. Adopted.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated that plug-in - vehicles are in line with the
City's vehicle replacement program; she would prefer to have an
Alameda Power and Telecom representative on the Task Force.
The Supervising Planner stated that a Public Utilities Board
representative would be on the Task Force.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a Planning Board Member was
interested in serving on the Task Force.
The Supervising Planner responded the Boards and Commissions have
not been approached; stated various Planning Board Members are on
subcommittees.
Mayor Johnson stated the Task Force composition could be brought
back to Council for review.
The Acting City Manager stated the Public Utilities Board President
volunteered to be on the Task Force last night.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any other cities have moved
forward on the initiative.
The Supervising Planner responded all cites are moving forward
together data is being collected; the next process will be
reviewing the data and setting local and regional goals.
Mayor Johnson stated that most Alameda County cities are moving
forward with the initiative; the Alameda County Conference of
Mayors endorses the ICLEI portion.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents (In favor of resolutions) : Carol Stone, Alameda; Karen
Butler, League of Women Voters (submitted handout) ; Joyce Mercado,
Alameda. Edward Thorp, Alameda; Stanley M. Schiffman, Alamedans for
Climate Protection; Ron Silberstein, Alameda; Herb Behrstock,
Alamedans for Climate Protection; Michael J. Krueger, Alameda;
Jodie Van Horn, Plug-In - Bay Area; Marc Geller, Plug-In -
America/Electric Auto Association (submitted handout) ; Jon
Spangler, Alameda Recycling Coalition; David Teeters, Alamedans for
Climate Protection.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,4,"portion of the meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated the number of public members should be
increased; the Task Force could have two additional members.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the Task Force's life
expectancy.
The Supervising Planner responded the process would be completed in
March 2007.
Councilmember deHaan stated the initial Task Force could be large
and move down to a smaller oversight Task Force.
Councilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated
there is a process that covers the assessmenti proposed that the
resolution describe what is expected from the Task Force; some
functions to consider are: 1) publicizing and engaging the general
public in the discussion of what ICLEI is and what the assessment
is, 2) determining what evaluation of the output of the assessment
affects the City and providing a recommendation to Council on
priorities of actions that the City should take against the
assessment points; 3) determining what policies may affect the
general public, and 4) providing future recommendations; stated a
century and a half of industrial revolution habits are backing up
because fuel is going awayi the impact has been demonstrated on the
whole planet; the process sets up an ongoing way of life for the
City; a commission might be recommended by the Task Force after the
process is completed in March 2007.
Councilmember Daysog thanked the speakers for addressing the issue
stated global warming can be reduced by 10 -20% by taking mass
transit or car sharing once a week.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to see the Task Force
focus on encouraging individual citizens, and more importantly
businesses in town, to do their share.
Councilmember deHaan stated he is concerned that past efforts have
not been institutionalized; Alameda has been extremely successful
in waste management, green power generation, and as an electric
city; emphasis is not placed on programs as time passes the City
has some of the basic policies and desire; the City has been a
leader and has some of the better terrain for people to get out of
cars and walk; focus should not be lost and should be a day-in and
day-out lifestyle; the City was not allowed to purchase electric
cars for Alameda Power and Telcom; Cal Start was one of the City's
leading efforts; Alameda should be proud to be an electric city.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,5,"Mayor Johnson stated Alameda has bio-diesel at the former Naval Air
Base for power generators; the City has implemented one of the most
progressive and inclusive recycling programs; Alameda has been on
the forefront of environmental issues.
Councilmember Matarrese requested taking a separate vote on the two
resolutions.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution
Participating in the ICLEI, with an amendment to increase the
public members at large to four members and to incorporate the
following Task Force functions: 1) publicize and engage the
community at large, 2) evaluate and provide prioritized
recommendations to Council on actions that can be taken on the
output of the assessment, 3) provide recommendations for monitoring
of activities, and 4) provide recommendations on how to proceed,
including but not limited to, establishing a standing commission.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City has many existing commissions.
Council lmember Matarrese stated his recommendation was that the Task
Force would make a recommendation to Council on the monitoring
process which could include, but not be limited to, a standing
commission.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission and other
commissions could take on some of the role.
Councilmember Matarrese stated existing commissions could be used,
or a broad, standing commission could be established.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda Power and
Telecom deserves credit; 85% of the City's electricity comes from
renewable resources; recently the Alameda Times Star reported that
Alameda Power and Telecom entered into a twenty-five year contract
for wind power; Alameda Power and Telecom purchases power from a
Santa Cruz facility that produces electricity from gas that comes
from dumps.
The Senior Management Analyst stated Point Richmond and Livermore
landfill gas facilities are additional sources for Alameda Power
and Telecom; a larger facility is anticipated at Half Moon Bay;
transmission costs and risks are reduced.
Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda Power and Telecom is very
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,6,"aggressive about pursuing renewable energy sources.
The Senior Management Analyst stated that management and staff have
discussed a goal for 100% renewable energy sources.
Mayor Johnson inquired what was the nationwide goal, to which the
Senior Management Analyst responded the State's goal is 20% by
2013.
Councilmember deHaan stated the landfill gas is a win-win
situation.
The motion carried by consensus - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested inserting ""electric"" in front of
""hybrid electric"" throughout the resolution because the City's
vehicle replacement policy directs purchase of entirely electric
vehicles first; stated the hybrid electric becomes a fuel
efficient, gasoline driven car when driving at a high speed and
long distance; former Interim City Manager Bill Norton had an
electric Honda CRV and was able to make two round trips from
Alameda to San Francisco between charges.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether members in the audience had
any questions or needed clarification.
Mr. Geller stated he wanted to ensure that Council was clear on the
difference between hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid
electric vehicles, and entirely electric vehicles; the resolution
only relates to a hybrid vehicle that can be plugged in; today':
hybrid vehicles cannot be plugged in; there is not option to get
electricity from the cleaner, cheaper domestic source.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City's number one priority is
entirely electric.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Providing
Support for Policies, with an amendment to insert ""electric or"" in
front of ""hybrid electric vehicles""
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-374) Negotiations with the Bay Area Water Transit Authority
Related to Transfer of City Ferry Services.
Mayor Johnson announced that she would recuse herself on the matter
because she serves on the Water Transit Authority (WTA).
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,7,"The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.
Steve Castleberry, Water Transit Authority Executive Director,
provided a Power Point presentation.
The Ferry Services Manager provided a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the specific guarantee period was
five to seven years instead of fifteen to twenty years for
maintaining current service levels.
The Ferry Services Manager responded Council could specify a
fifteen or twenty-year period.
Councilmember Daysog inquired why the City could not get ferry
services and funding back if the WTA reduced service levels.
The Ferry Services Manager responded he did not want to commit the
City to take back ferry services if grant funding fell short of
actual operation expenses during the intervening years.
Councilmember Daysog stated the WTA is receiving some core funding ;
the City should get back the boats and revenue if the WTA does not
perform.
Councilmember deHaan stated the condition of the ferries might
deteriorate and the City would need to get additional funding to
bring the ferries back into operation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be protected; the
City should have the option to take back the ferry services if
trips are reduced below what the City is accustomed to at the end
of the guarantee period, rather than the original number of trips
at the time of transfer; the City cannot afford to go back to the
original service levels because of Alameda Point build out; he
would like a real guarantee that the City would get the boats and
funding back in order to maintain the service level the City needs
in the event reductions are ever proposed.
The Ferry Services Manager inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese
meant that if there were ten round trips per day at the time of
transfer and the WTA increases the trips to fifteen round trips per
day, the trigger point would be whether the WTA proposed to reduce
the round trips to below fifteen, to which Councilmember Matarrese
responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that getting back the same boats with a
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,8,"longer guarantee period is highly unlikely; provisions need to be
made.
Councilmember deHaan stated the likelihood of an agreement falling
apart would indicate a total disaster with the ferry service; the
WTA is an authority that should have some long standing.
Councilmember Matarrese stated his biggest fear is that a 75,000
person city would take second place to larger surrounding cities ;
Alameda has the most need for a ferry system; he is concerned that
Alameda might get a trip reduction after seventeen years in favor
of adding an additional trip for another city; Alameda does not
have a chance of getting another bridge or tube; everything needs
to be done to ensure that Alameda's needs are on top of the pile.
Councilmember deHaan stated he feels that the City could keep
running the ferry services for the next five to ten years; the
question is how long the storm can be weathered and whether there
is a commitment from the State; the City could be stranded;
inquired whether any future legislation would strengthen the WTA's
position.
Mr. Castleberry responded he believes so; a significant amount of
funds are set aside for transit services in the November ballot
infrastructure bond that can provide emergency response during
recovery of a disaster; stated the details of the bond still need
to be worked out; the WTA believes the bond will be an investment
in the ferry service.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the WTA's annual budget.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA currently receives $3 million per
year for ongoing operations; another $3 million per year will be
available through Regional Measure 2 funds once operations begin
for South San Francisco; another $3 million per year will be
received when the Berkeley operation starts.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there are funds for Alameda.
Mr. Castleberry responded there is approximately $6 million per
year in Regional Measure 2 funds for expanded service in Alameda.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA is planning on taking
over other services, and whether the WTA is in negotiations with
other local authorities.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA is in discussions with the City
of Vallejo; the City of Tiburon has approached the WTA for help
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,9,"which probably would not be feasible South San Francisco and
Berkeley are new ferry services.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether existing service is a focus
of the WTA.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA does not have any authority over
Alameda services; the WTA's only legislative mandate is on new
services.
Councilmember deHaan stated there are benefits and disadvantages in
being first with a new service; inquired whether schedules are the
WTA's forte.
Mr. Castleberry responded the WTA looks at schedules as low fruit;
schedules can be done at a fairly low cost to make the mode better
for the riders.
Councilmember deHaan stated he appreciates the WTA's efforts to
help market the City's ferry services i inquired whether the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would always be a
player for the WTA's funding stream.
Mr. Castleberry responded MTC administers Regional Measure 2 funds
MTC would touch 90% of the WTA's operating funds.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how the WTA would be better at
working with MTC for farebox relief.
Mr. Castleberry responded MTC reviews and evaluates services
separately; MTC does not evaluate bus companies on a route-by-route
basis; the WTA believes marketing is not just for one route, but
for both.
Councilmember deHaan stated he thinks the City could do the same
thing as the WTA.
Mr. Castleberry stated that the WTA would put all resources in the
farebox relief because the farebox ratio is unfair.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she thinks that staff does a wonderful
job of running the ferry services; she needs incentives from the
WTA, such as having more access to funds and having the opportunity
to improve the ferry services, before considering turning the ferry
service over; she does not see any reason to turn the ferry service
over to the WTA; inquired whether route timing would be systemized;
stated that she is interested in having ferry connections to buses
and trains for the South San Francisco and Redwood City ferry
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,10,"services; bicycle riders are complaining that the ferries do not
have enough room for bikes; bike accommodations would be an
improvement.
Mr. Castleberry stated the WTA would not believe that transferring
City ferry services is a good idea if riders would not benefit; the
WTA is eligible for funds that the City is not; 25% of operating
funds would be for landside connections; transit agencies can be
paid to cooperate; boats are being designed to carry 100 bikes.
Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated he was impressed with the WTA's
presentation; he is not an opponent or proponent at this point he
is concerned with 1) possible affects on cross-estuary services, 2)
what the WTA would offer to reduce ticket prices, 3) greener
propulsion systems and other green initiatives, including solar and
sail powered ferries, 4) guarantees for customer services, and 5)
bike commute provisions.
Councilmember Daysog stated people in Alameda love the ferry
system; the two Alameda ferry systems service particular markets;
he is not inclined to move forward with the negotiations; key
points need to be considered; funding streams should be given back
if boats are given back; concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore's
comments regarding getting the same boats back with a longer
guarantee period.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired how much discussions would cost,
to which the Ferry Services Manager responded the discussions would
cost staff's time.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would not be done while WTA
discussions are conducted; stated he would like to have an analysis
of the two paths going forward; Council could make a decision on
whether it is worthwhile to tie up staff time to get $200,000 and
give up local control; he is not willing to authorize discussions
until the analysis is made.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated one of the key issues has to be
protection of Alameda's services because the ferry system is a
necessity; protection is necessary in case the Oakland to South San
Francisco run becomes more profitable and Alameda services are cut.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's question regarding the
cost for discussions, the Public Works Director stated the
approximate cost would be $15,000.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what would not be done while
negotiations were conducted, to which the Public Works Director
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,11,"responded marketing and customer relations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is going to be in a
healthy financial position to replace boats in five years.
The Public Works Director responded that he is not sure that the
City would be able to expand the services based on current or
projected funding there is a significant decrease in the funding
Oakland has given the City; there is no indication that additional
funding would be provided; Oakland could opt out; if so, the
majority of the farebox recovery for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry
Service would go away.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with being the
first one in the water; pieces have been put together to keep
things flowing; he is concerned that the WTA does not have the
complete wherewithal to make the transfer a priority; the issue is
a tough decision; concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding
deciding whether to negotiate.
The Public Works Director stated staff brought the matter to
Council because of a previous Council's request.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether other ferry systems are being
requested to joint the WTA, to which the Public Works Director
responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there are competitive grants
that the City could apply for to bridge the funding gap; stated
Council discussed the concept of hiring a grant writer in the past.
The Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated the
City receives a bulk of Regional Measure 1 funding; the City is not
a transit agency transit agencies receive federal money; the WTA
has access to Regional Measure 2 funds.
Mr. Castleberry stated that Regional Measure 2 funds set aside $6
million per year for operating costs and some capital for the
Alameda/Oakland ferry service.
Councilmember Matarrese stated it is odd that the City does not
have access to money to expand its services. requested reasons in
bullet point format for entertaining the possible transfer of the
City's ferry services to the WTA; requested an explanation on why
$6 million is available to the WTA and not the City for expanding
Alameda ferry services; suggested reviewing the possibility of
changing the rule or getting an exception so that the City can
entertain the possibility of obtaining the funding.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,12,"Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City needs to get some tangible
benefit for transferring the ferry service.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to waste
staff's or WTA's time if there are no good, solid reasons for the
transfer.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of bringing the matter back
to Council with consolidated information.
Councilmember deHaan stated the matter does not need to be fast
tracked; Council needs to better understand what the parties bring
to the table; more information needs to be gathered he would like
to have staunch, feedback points brought back to Council to ensure
that the WTA is right on track; the transfer could be the marriage
of the century, or possibly not.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he previously
abstained on the matter; he will vote no on the matter tonight the
City should get back to the regular business of running and
managing the ferry system.
Councilmember deHaan stated an agreement does not need to be
signed, and negotiations do not need to be initiated; Council is
requesting that both sides get together to provide information on
the future and commitments that can be made.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he will still vote no on the
matter; he may change his vote in the future.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore and Matarrese - 3.
Noes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstentions: Mayor Johnson - 1.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-375) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, requested status on the
Parrot Park northern waterfront project; stated the children have
nowhere to play.
The Acting City Manager stated the Environmental Impact Report is
being prepared for the northern waterfront.
Mayor Johnson suggested the matter be referred to the Housing
Authority.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,13,"Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he received a complaint about
the treatment of the sycamore trees along Parrot Park.
Mayor Johnson stated the City needs to be careful on how trees are
pruned; direction was given to do a ten-year prune on Gibbons Drive
a couple of years ago.
Councilmember deHaan stated the trees survived; the trees can take
severe pruning but severe pruning is not a good process.
(06-376) The following discussed Measure A: Diane Lichtenstein,
Housing Opportunities Make Sense (HOMES) ; Helen Sause, HOMES ;Laura
Thomas, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-377) Mayor Johnson stated she received an e-mail indicating
the cost of solar permits in Alameda is higher than other cities;
requested the matter be reviewed.
(06 -378 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated a tenant at the Clement
Avenue storage rental facility complained about sludge seepage
between storage unit concrete cracks; the tenant inquired whether
the City could contact the owner.
The Acting City Manager stated Alameda County would be contacted as
well to ensure there is not health issue.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that a report be brought back to
Council on the matter.
(
06-379 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested that the possibility of
renaming Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue be placed on the
next agenda.
(06-380) Councilmember deHaan stated that recently retail leakage
has been well documented at Alameda Landing only a certain amount
of leakage can be captured; a certain amount is needed in certain
categories; he would like to review limiting the number of square
feet in existing and future shopping centers; he would like to
discuss big boxes and boxes in general requested that the matter
be placed on the next agenda.
(06-381) Mayor Johnson requested that the US Conference of Mayor's
ICLEI initiative be placed on the next Council agenda under Council
Communicationsi stated placing the matter under Council
Communications would be the appropriate first step to see whether
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,14,"the matter should be placed on a Council agenda for action.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 10:33 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
14
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-18,15,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -JULY 18, 2006- -5:30 P. M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :
(06-362) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators
:
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations
:
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees
Association.
(06-363) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900
Main Street ; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-364) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.9; Number of cases: Two.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference With Labor
Negotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on
the status of contract negotiations and gave direction; regarding
Conference With Real Property Negotiators, Council received a
briefing from legal counsel and gave direction regarding
Conference With Legal Counsel, the matter was continued to July 27,
2006.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:30 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
July 18, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-20,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
THURSDAY- - -JULY 20, 2006- - -8:00 A.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:10 a.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-382) Conference with Legal Council - Anticipated Litigation;
Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section
54956.91 Number of cases: One.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that direction was given to Council.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 9:00 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
July 20, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -JULY 26, 2006- - -7:00 P.M.
Mayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:25 p.m.
Boy Scout Troop 2 led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present :  ouncilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog,
deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor/
Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-045CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, I Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement
Commission (CIC) Meetings held on July 5, 2006, and Special CIC
Meetings held on July 5, 2006 and July 14, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the Minutes.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-046CIC) Recommendation to award Design-Build Contract in the
amount of $9,104,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for the Civic Center
Parking Garage, CIP No. 90-19;
(06-046ACIC) Recommendation to award Construction Contract in the
amount of $8,800,000 to C. Overaa & Co. for Rehabilitation and
Restoration of the Historic Alameda Theater
(06-384CC) Resolution No. 14003, ""Authorizing the Execution of U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Contract for Loan
Guarantee Assistance Under Section 108 of the Housing and Community
Development Act of 1974, as Amended, 42 U.S.C. Section 5308;
Execution of Brownfields Economic Development Initiative (BEDI)
Grant Agreement; and Issuance of Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program
Variable Rate Note.' Adopted; Recommendation to authorize
execution of Cooperation Agreement between the City and Community
Improvement Commission; and
(06-384ACC)
Resolution No. 14004, ""Authorizing the Summary
Vacation of a Portion of the Central Avenue Public Right-of-Way -
pursuant to Chapter 4 of the Streets and Highways Codes "" Adopted.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
1
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,2,"The Development Services Director and Development Manager gave a
Power Point presentation and provided two documents.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested clarification on
whether the disability access is for the access only or also an
emergency exit for everyone.
The Development Manager responded the ramp serves as the disabled
access entry and emergency exit for everyone.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether dollar saving
figures were identified for the western enclosure, wheelchair lift,
and roof repair.
The Development Manager responded in the negative; stated savings
came out of various divisions for each item; changes in scope were
tracked but not the total savings for each item.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether said savings
reduced the base bid.
The Development Services Director responded the savings reduced
Overaa's $9.7 million base bid to $8.8 million.
The Development Manager stated savings were also realized by
seeking out different subcontractors.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated dollar figures were
provided for each parking garage line item; inquired whether dollar
figures could be placed on the theater items.
The Development Manager responded dollar figures were not placed on
the theater items because the intent was to keep track of the scope
in order to get a price that made sense and was within budget.
The Development Services Director continued with her presentation.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the marquee line item was for
full restoration.
The Development Services Director responded the marquee line item
would be for all restoration except re-stenciling the pattern that
was under the marquee.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the light
sequencing would be replaced.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
2
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,3,"The Development Services Director responded she was not sure
whether the sign could be animated within budget.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another scheme
reduced the parking garage size to four levels plus the roof.
The Development Services Director responded said scheme was not
evaluated but could be a cost savings to the project; stated the
project could be constructed within the existing budget if the
parking garage size was reduced to four levels.
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he was leaning towards a
five-screen theater and a five-level parking garage, which would
provide more seats and might not jeopardize retail as much; numbers
could be extrapolated to reduce the cost by $2 to $2.5 million.
The Development Services Manager continued with her presentation.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the HUD loan had
certain parameters.
The Development Manager responded job generation is one of the
major criteria.
The Development Services Director stated the HUD program no longer
exists.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether an increase in
retail square footage would increase jobs.
The Development Services Director responded possibly; stated the
HUD application cannot be re-evaluated and re-ranked at this time.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City risks losing $7
million in HUD funding if the City gets too far away from the
approved project parameters.
The Development Services Director stated the developer has agreed
to take on all the operating costs for the Historic Theater because
of the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) conditions and
projected revenue generation; funds would need to be taken out of
the General Fund if the City took over operation and maintenance.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether deferred
interest was one of the benefits of the HUD loan.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
3
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,4,"an interest in selling the property to the City.
The Development Services Director responded the Elks considered
entering into a transaction if the City rebuilt the gymnasium.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Elks would transfer
property to the City, to which the Development Services Director
responded she did not know.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated he is concerned that said
discussions did not take place.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
4
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,5,"The Development Services Director continued with her presentation.
incilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that the $15 million
Scheme 5 parking structure cost is overstated because the parking
structure would not be as elaborate.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the $15 million cost included
acquisition, to which the Development Services Director responded
in the affirmative.
Mayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of the staff recommendation) : Harry Dahlberg,
Economic Development Commission; Lars Hanssen, Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) ; Michael J. Krueger, Alameda; Susan Decker,
Alameda: Pauline Kelley, Alameda; Duane Watson, Alameda Barbara
Marchand, Alameda; Harry Hartman, Alameda; Walt Jacobs, Alameda
Chamber of Commerce; Melody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce (read
list of 17 names) ; Norma Henning, Alameda Robb Ratto, PSBA.
Opponents (Not in favor of the staff recommendation) : Woody Minor,
Alameda Ani Dimusheva, Alameda; Joe Meylor, Alameda (submitted
handout ) ; Pat Bail, Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Janet Gibson,
Alameda. Judith Lynch, Historical Advisory Board; Kristianne
Koenen, Alameda; Kevin Fredrick, Alameda.
There being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the
public portion of the Hearing.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog thanked staff for providing
alternatives; stated he prefers Scheme 2 where the attention is
focused on reusing the Historic Theater and having a smaller
garage; he understands that Scheme 2 posses a risk of losing $7
million in HUD loans; theater jobs would be lost, but retail jobs
would increase; the City takes pride in running public enterprises;
he thinks the City could do a good job of operating the Historic
Theater and a smaller parking garage; the operation of the theater
entails public subsidy under the status quo scenario; rent would be
approximately 40 cents per square foot for the Historic Theater ;
the market rate for a new operating theater is approximately $1.50
per square foot; the City should get more than 40 cents per square
foot; the City is losing out on the differential in rent; he sees
Scheme 2 as a smaller scaled, hometown movie theater; the Historic
Theater should be restored to the full potential that the citizens
want; questioned whether cuts might ruin the historic quality.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
5
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,6,"Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired how the square foot price was
determined for the Historic Theater.
The Development Services Director responded cost comparisons were
done against brand new, first-ru construction at $1.30 per square
foot average; the budget starts out with a lease rate of $72,000
per year for years one through six; the rate jumps to $156,000 per
year for years seven through ten; the rate would be based on the
CPI starting in year eleven, with a 3% floor and 5% ceiling; the
developer would be required to make a $1.2 million FF&E commitment;
the operating costs would be very slim in the first six years,
especially when there is a FF&E load to retire; a 17% profit
participation has been included in the event the project stabilizes
at
a higher rate than estimated; the City would share in percentage
rent if the project produces better than expected; the City would
receive payments just about equal to what the developer and
investors are getting.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the profit participation
continues throughout the lease.
The Development Services Director responded the profit
participation is reduced to about 12% at the time the first loan is
repaid.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the square footage rate is a
minimum rental amount, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
louncilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that translating items
into square foot terms would not overcome the existing difference
of 90 cents per square foot; related discussions were held last
August; he would rather get the money up front.
The Development Services Director stated the City is leveraging a
minimum of $5.3 million in private investment as a result of the
agreement.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated said investment
contributed to the division within the community.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated there was a $4.5 million
delta between the bids; the project includes the Cineplex, Historic
Theater and parking garage inquired whether there was a guarantee
that the Cineplex financing was in place now.
The Development Services Director responded that the developer has
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
6
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,7,"a commitment for construction and permanent financing; the Bank of
Alameda extended the commitment for six months; the developer has
raised $2 million of additional equity and is trying to finalize
the construction bids; the developer is planning to apply for
permits in early September.
Councilmember/Commission deHaan inquired whether staff received
documents verifying that the financing is in place.
The Development Services Director responded the City has a copy of
the loan commitment; the appraisal and placement of the equity into
the loan are the only contingencies left on the loan commitment
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the Cineplex and the
parking garage property line has been pushed four to five feet on
Oak Street and dog legs out.
The Development Services Director stated the sidewalk dog legs out i
the City performed a survey of the property; the property showed
that the public sidewalk encroached six feet onto the private
property; originally a bulb out at the corner and removing the
parking on the City's portion of the parcel was contemplated for a
variety of traffic safety and pedestrian concernsi originally, the
bulb was to be fourteen feet wide and would now be ten feet wide
the average downtown sidewalk is eight feet wide.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the sidewalk
would be four-fee without the bulb out.
The Development Services Director responded the sidewalk would be
six feet because the property line would be set back two feet.
uncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is concerned about
the massive walls in the area; inquired why substituting surety
bonds was pulled off the agenda and whether the matter was relevant
to tonight's discussion.
The Development Services Director responded that the staff
recommended that the $200,000 offset come from the division's
operating fund for salaries.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion on the
theater budget included everything, to which the Development
Services Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan commended staff for making $4.5
million in value engineering reductions; stated there is slim to no
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
7
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,8,"wiggle room in case a problem arises; inquired whether a 15%
contingency is adequate.
The Development Services Director responded staff recommends
reducing the contingency to 5% for the garage and 13% for the
theater ; stated $250,000 has been budgeted for soil conditions;
testing has been done; she hopes to add back the contingency after
construction has started; she feels adequately protected.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated $5 million was to be set
aside for the catalyst Webster Street project; the money is out of
the budget now; inquired how the project would be funded.
The Development Services Director responded there are a number of
ideas for funding the project; stated $13.5 million was raised to
retire the Marina Village infrastructure obligations; the Marina
Village project had a repayment of $2.5 million to the General Fund
load; $2 million was given to the Library Project another $2
million has been used in the operation of the theater project;
staff has requested that the $1 million coming back from the
Library project be distributed back to the theater project; other
opportunities include replacing cash reserves and renegotiating the
Catellus Project which has uncommitted tax increment and land
proceeds.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the West End
generated all the bond funding.
The Development Services Director responded 48% came from Business
Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) and 52% came from the West
End.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog moved approval of directing
further analysis of Scheme 2.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated various schemes were
revisited because other options needed to be reviewed; the schemes
need to be revisited in case the City is unable to value engineer
the project back in line; possible cost savings are obvious and
provide for more leeway in case there is a problem.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and deHaan -
2. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore and Matarrese and
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
8
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,9,"The Development Services Director stated concerns need to be
reiterated regarding a smaller project; ground rent and revenue
would be reduced.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the project cost could be
reduced by $3 million to $4 million with a five-screen theater and
a
five-level parking garage the equation would be changed
minimally; stated Councilmember/Commissior Daysog requested that
options be reviewed.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City would not need to
contribute approximately $2 million if an operator would not
operate the Historic Theater and provide the maintenance; the
maintenance cost would come out of the General Fund and would have
no cap.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he looks at the
alternatives as fall backs; he is pleased that the theater has been
acquired; concurred with Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog
regarding restoring the Historic Theater as much as possible;
stated the Historic Theater is a civic treasure; he is nervous
about construction in a historic building and the contingency
dropping from 15% to 13%; he has some comfort in that the value
engineering process lessens the risk of the 2% contingency
reduction; he is interested in what other funds might be available
to provide more comfort; the main cost of the project is the
Historic Theater; he is willing to support the staff
recommendation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated the City does not own the
Elks' parking garage or the U.S. Bank parking site; the City has
not discussed acquiring either site with the property owners.
parcel costs go up once the City expresses interest in purchasing a
parcel; construction costs are escalating the City would be
running the risk of not having dollars in place to acquire the
property, going through the design review process, and building a
parking structure on either site.
Mayor/Chai: Johnson stated other funding sources should be reviewed
in the event that extra costs are incurred; concurred with
louncilmembers/Commissioners Daysog and Matarrese regarding
restoring the Historic Theater to the greatest extent that the City
can afford; stated the City needs to be prepared for possible extra
costs before starting the parking structure; she was happy to see
that the City of Oakland was going forward with the restoration of
the Fox Theater; the restoration does not appear to be a theater
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
9
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,10,"project; the City of Oakland is contributing $57 million to
renovate the Fox Theater; she is happy that the Historic Theater is
being renovated as a theater and is owned by the City; her personal
preference would be to restore the Historic Theater as a single-
screen theater Council needs to be responsible for how much public
money is spent; she would support a motion to support the staff
recommendation.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated there is an ""Other Costs""
line item for the parking garage and theater rehabilitation; the
line item for the parking garage is over $1.4 million and over $1.8
million for the theater; a cost breakdown was provided for both
line items; the document is available as a public document.
Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether phasing is planned for the
theater restoration.
The Development Services Director responded the construction
project would start within the next 30-45 days; stated the Historic
Theater construction will be the most time consuming; the plan
would be to do the garage and then the Historic Theater; the
Cineplex would start two to three months later; the entire project
should be completed within a year and a half; a $3 million grant
application was submitted to the State for historic preservation
money; high marks were received except in one category; she does
not think that one evaluator understood the financial statement
the grant would be resubmitted and she is optimistic about
receiving the grant.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated that the point of his
failed motion was to further analyze Scheme 2; costs are involved
with a stand alone, three-screer theater. cautioned colleagues from
using scare tactics such as General Fund dollars subsidizing the
project stated the Golf Complex, ferry system, electric and cable
systems are all self-funding enterprises; revenue would be
generated through retail which could help towards running the
theater. options need to be vetted.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated she brought up the General
Fund because dollars coming from tax increment redevelopment funds
cannot be used to pay maintenance costs; she did not intend her
statement to be a scare tactic, but only to address how things
work.
Councilmember/Commissioner Daysog stated there are other revenue
opportunities such as the retail square footage.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
10
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,11,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the City is doing the
project to revitalize Park Street; the theater would bring more
retail activity in the Park Street area and would help generate
revenue. ; revenue does not have to come directly from the theater
project.
The Development Services Director stated she would hope that tax
increment would be received.
Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated the catalyst project would
generate a tax funding stream.
Councilmember/Commissioner
Matarrese
concurred
with
louncilmember/Commissioner deHaan regarding the theater project
revitalizing Park Street; stated the theater project revitalizes
the whole City, puts money into the tax increment pool, and
captures a lot of the money that goes off the island; the theater
project is the best, real bonafide option to reopen the building as
a theater, revitalize the historic business district, and keep a
lot of discretionary dollars in the City.
Councilmember/Commissione: Matarrese approval of the staff
recommendations [including the Development Services Director's
recommendation that $200,000 come from the Development Services
operating fund salaries] and adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated that he
would not vote in favor of  ouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese'
motion; the project is now in a situation where the massing and the
scale is disproportionate; Oak Street traffic would be impacted; he
does not mean to infer that he does not support the Historic
Theater, the Cineplex and parking garage in some form; the project
got larger than life on a postage stamp piece of property; the
wheelchair lift elimination should be reconsidered; said
elimination would be the death for twelve public uses of the
theater per year.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese requested staff to provide
wheelchair lift rental costs so that the public can be assured that
a wheelchair lift would be provided for public use of the theater.
The Development Manager responded wheelchair lift rental is
standard practice; stated the intent is to have a wheelchair lift
available for the twelve public days.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
11
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,12,"Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the cost
to put the wheelchair lift back in as a line item, to which the
Development Manager responded approximately $80,000.
Mayor/Chair Johnson recommended that the motion include direction
for staff to provide the cost and budget source for the rental of a
wheelchair lift.
Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese and Vice Mayor/Commissioner
Gilmore agreed to amend the motion to include Mayor/Chair Johnson's
recommendation.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers/Commissioners Gilmore, Matarrese
and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 3. Noes : Councilmembers/Commissioners
Daysog and deHaan -2.
(06-047CIC) Recommendation to authorize substitution of Surety Bond
for 2003 Merged Area Bond Issue Cash Reserve Account consistent
with Bond Indenture. Withdrawn.
Chair Johnson announced that the matter was withdrawn from the
agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
12
Community Improvement Commission
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-26,13,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
WEDNESDAY - -JULY 26, 2006- - -6:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourn to Closed Session to consider:
(06-383) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 2900
Main Street; Negotiating parties City of Alameda and Alameda
Gateway, Ltd. i Under negotiation: Price and terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from
Real Property Negotiators and gave direction.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:15 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
July 26, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-26.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-07-27,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND
SOCIAL SERVICE HUMAN RELATIONS BOARD MEETING
THURSDAY- - -JULY 27, 2005- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present
:
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson; Board Members Bonta,
Chen, Franz, Hollinger Jackson, Wasko -
9.
Absent :
Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
AGENDA ITEM
(06-385) Work Session to discuss; Brief Opening Comments and
Introductions ; Board Member Introductions and 2005 Board
Accomplishments and 2006 Board Goals; 2005 Workgroup
Accomplishments and 2006 Work Plans - Assessment and Awareness,
Family Services Workgroup, and Sister City Workgroup; and Dialogue
on SSHRB's Directions for Coming Year.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Social Service Human Relations Board
July 27, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-07-27.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - -AUGUST 1, 2006- - - -7:30 P.M.
Vice Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Councilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
and Matarrese - 4.
Absent :
Mayor Johnson - 1.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-386) Library project update.
The Project Manager gave a brief update.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cost for the re-
striping and extension of Times Way would come out of Measure O
funds; stated he would like to maximize the money going to the
library branches if library construction costs are less than
estimated; further inquired whether Public Works money could be
used for the re-striping and extension.
The City Manager responded the matter could be reviewed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the impacts on other Public Work
projects would need to be considered if Public Work funds are used;
inquired whether the $1.5 million released from the State would be
going to library branches.
The Project Manager responded the $1.5 million would come back to
the City; the money already has been accounted for some
miscellaneous expenses are coming from Measure O funds, such as the
$71,000 moving cost; the move cannot be paid with the State grant.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the library branch work has
been quantified.
The Project Manager responded in the negative; stated $2 million
would not go very far.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether library branch modifications
and upgrades have been spelled out , to which the Project Manager
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,2,"responded in the negative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the modifications and
upgrades were dependent on the City's needs.
The Project Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the former
Library Director thought that a second story could be added to the
Bay Farm Island branch library he does not think a second story is
possible; costs would go up because an elevator would be needed; a
two-thirds square-foot expansion might be possible.
Councilmember deHaan inquired when a modification and upgrade
proposal would be brought to Council.
The Project Manager stated he would like to talk to an architect
first.
Councilmember Daysog stated the West End library shelving does not
allow books to stand upright; inquired whether eligible funds would
be available for altering the shelves.
The Project Manager responded that he just started looking at the
branch libraries.
Councilmember deHaan stated he would hate to see hand downs going
to branch libraries; inquired whether all the old shelving would be
utilized in the new library.
The Project Manager responded in the negative; stated all the old
shelving in the interim library would be disposed.
Councilmember deHaan stated there is a good chance to reutilize the
old shelving.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Library Board be
directed to start public discussion regarding the branch libraries
in order to bring recommendations to Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,3,"( *06-387) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on July 18, 2006, and the Special City Council Meetings held
on July 20, 2006 and July 26, 2006. Approved.
(*06-388) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,054,736.54
(*06-389) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call
for Bids for the Purchase/Lease of two greens mowers, two reel
mowers, one tractor, five electric utility vehicles, one sweeper,
and one self powered aerator. Accepted.
(*06-390) Recommendation to amend Agreement with Masayuki Nagase to
modify the dates of deliverables for Library Art Work for the New
Main Library Project. Accepted.
(*06-391) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Deleting Section 2-63.10, Third Party Claims, and by Adding
a New Section 2-65, Disposition of Property Consisting of Sections
2-65.1 through 2-65.5, to Article V, Administrative Policies and
Procedures Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-392) Public Hearing to consider Introduction of Ordinance
Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Article XVIII
Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Wood Frame One and Two
Story Residential Structures to Chapter XIII (Building and
Housing) Introduced.
The Building Official gave a Power Point presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether upgrades would be required
for hazardous plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and fire/life
safety systems, to which the Building Official responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired what was the rationale for a flat
fee, to which the Building Official responded a flat fee would
provide an incentive to homeowners.
Vice Mayor Gilmore opened the public portion of the hearing.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated multiple units should be included in
the proposed program; he fears that seismic retrofitting would
become mandatory; the 88,000 housing units referenced by the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) already have survived
more than a 6.9 magnitude earthquake on the Hayward Fault.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,4,"complex projects] through a fee reduction.
Councilmember deHaan stated the proposed ordinance is a major step
the Planning Board was interested in moving in the same direction;
Victorians are a concern and are in more jeopardy he looks forward
to providing an incentive to encourage retrofitting.
Councilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,5,"ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-393) Pat Colburn, Alameda; urged banning leaf blowers
;
outlined problems created by leaf blowers.
(06-394) Susan Battaglia, Alameda, stated leaf blowers should be
banned; childhood asthma is traced to airborne particles.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-395)
Discussion of the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate
Protection Agreement. Continued.
(06-396) Discussion of Big Box Retail Policies and Regulations.
Councilmember deHaan stated he did not want to review a super
center; the Retail Impact Assessment updates are not relevant
because the City is not considering 210,000 square foot boxes; he
is open to comments.
Judith M. Kissinger encouraged Council to take a careful look at
studies that show the pros and cons of having big box retail in a
neighborhood.
Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated she provided information to Council
in December Boston study reported that a big box has a $468
million negative net revenue gain; a specialty retail provides a
net revenue gain of $326 million; a shopping center has a net loss
of $314 million; local business would give 70% more in net revenue
gain than any big box store; local economy is brought down with big
box stores.
Ashley Jones, Alameda, stated he asked the Planning Board what
would be the use for the 200,000 square-foot space; the Planning
Board did not request an answer to the question; only one Planning
Board member voted against the proposal; Council needs to ask
questions before approval is given.
Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated the leakage study recommended small
retail stores and noted that big boxes were not needed to contain
leakage. she questions the potential traffic and congestion
impacts; Planning Board Member Anne Cook seems to have expertise on
the matter and voted against the proposal.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the report is a travesty to open
government; attachments are not available on the web site; he
questions the report's relevance to Alameda; studies have addressed
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,6,"what big box retail does to the Bay Area; City staff needs to be
unbiased.
Councilmember deHaan stated he placed the matter on the agenda
because discussion needs to go forward now; proposals will be
before Council and have already been before the Planning Board; the
City is trying to capture off-island sales leakage many studies
have been conducted; the June 7 Alameda Landing study specified
that the leakage was not that big and does not constitute a large
box format; the drawings show four 225,000 square foot boxes; he
would like to start reviewing the opportunity of an ordinance,
recommendation, or proposal control is needed on a level that is
manageable for the City; additional entitlements are requested and
would be a problem; the studies indicate that big boxes have an
economic impact on local business; there are wage and benefit
concerns ; he would like to have more dialogue on the matter and
would like to have the leakage study go back to the Economic
Development Commission (EDC) for further discussion to determine
what is really needed; he would like to have the matter continued.
louncilmember Matarrese stated the Economic Development Strategic
Plan Task Force (EDSP) had the same discussion in 1999 ; the
Strategic Plan states that Alameda does not want to have big box
retail; discussion was mainly focused on Walmart, the Home Depot
and COSTCO, which are warehouse stores; the Strategic Plan is being
updated; concurred with Councilmember deHaan's suggestion; EDC
review is a good idea; stated that re-establishing the goals of the
Strategic Plan is good after seven years; big boxes should be
defined; there are concerns with how employees are treated and the
drain on the public health system.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated a shopping center study was conducted in
the last two years; the study addressed the need for anchor stores
at shopping centers; several stores on the list could have been
anchor tenants but had minimal approval from Alameda residents; the
EDC needs to review anchor stores being big box stores; a big box
might not be needed to make an Alameda shopping center successful :
the two components need to be reviewed together.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the same process should be
established for the Strategic Plan; the EDC recommended the
Strategic Plan with the output of the process brought to Council:
the Transportation Commission was an outcome of the processi
traffic patterns need to be reviewed. the Strategic Plan needs to
be renewed and brought back.
Councilmember Daysog stated that big box retail discussions need to
be part of the conversations involving Alameda's economic vision,
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,7,"particularly at Alameda Landing other land uses that focus on
generating jobs for young adults should be considered; decisions
need to be held on whether the City should focus on big box retail
or quality retail that residents want; he would encourage
conversation on what the City wants for current and future
residents at Alameda Landing; economic opportunities exist other
than retail, such as Clif Bar and Rosenblum Winery expansion the
data does not show a strong demand for available, household
consumer spending at big box retail; available, household consumer
spending is in quality and specialty retail; there are a variety of
options; time needs to be allowed to make the right decisions
rather than making a wrong decision that the City cannot recover
from.
Councilmember deHaan stated the City needs to decide what
sacrifices it would be willing to make if discounters need to draw
50% or more in sales from off-island spending; traffic corridors
would be impacted; the Southshore anchor tenant was Trader Joes,
which is a small grocery store; he would welcome similar stores to
the City because good service and revenue are generated he
welcomes more information on the matter.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated she has heard arguments that big box
retail stores would bring in other desired retails, such as Ann
Taylor; she would like the EDC to review the accuracy of said
arguments.
Councilmember deHaan stated that the June 7 study notes that Ann
Taylor Loft, Chicos and Old Navy are willing to come to Alameda
Landing without having a stand alone Target; 40% of Walmart and
Target customers shop at both stores; discounters have more
customer outreach; more congestion would be generated.
The City Manager stated that staff would provide an update on what
is the EDSP process.
Councilmember Matarrese stated he wanted to make sure that the
process includes the Transportation Commission and the Planning
Board.
Councilmember Daysog stated the Alameda Landing process has taken a
long time; a decision should be made as soon as possible ;
revisiting the EDSP would take twelve months; Catellus and ProLogis
should be advised now rather than later if Alameda Landing would
not work out for the City.
(06-397) Councilmember Matarrese stated he saw an Alameda Landing
traffic mitigation report that went from the Transportation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-01,8,"Commission to the Planning Board; one of the Transportation
Commission's responsibilities are to make recommendations to
Council, not the Planning Board; the Planning Board can weigh in on
what the Transportation Commission recommends ; Boards and
Commissions should feel free to bring items directly to Council;
Boards and Commissions could be copied on reports brought to
Council.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; stated
the Transportation Commission had quite a few recommendations and
concerns which should come to Council on a different track;
similarly, the EDC and Planning Board should come to Council on a
different track.
The City Manager stated the intent is to seek input from Boards and
Commissions and to bring concerns and recommendations back to
Council.
(06-398) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that tonight's Council meeting
could be viewed online through the streaming video process;
requested that the Information Technology Director explain the
streaming video process.
The Information Technology Director stated streaming video enables
people to watch Council meetings live on the internet; tonight's
meeting will be uploaded on the City's website at the end of the
meeting; agenda items can be viewed individually.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Vice Mayor Gilmore adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:40 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
8
August 1, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-02,1,"SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION
AND HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING
WEDNESDAY- - -AUGUST 2, 2006- -5:45 P.M.
Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board Member Gilmore
convened the Special Joint Meeting at 5:55 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present
Councilmembers / Authority Members
/
Commissioners / Board Members Daysog,
deHaan, Matarrese, and Gilmore - 4.
Absent :
Mayor/Chair Johnson - 1.
The Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to
consider:
(06-399CC/06-048CIC)
Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing
Litigation; Name of case : Operation Dignity V. Alameda Reuse and
Redevelopment Authority, Community Improvement Commission, City of
Alameda and Housing Authority of the City of Alameda.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Vice Mayor/Authority Member/Commissioner/Board
Member Gilmore announced that the Council/Authority
Members/Commissioners/ Board Members received a briefing
on
parameters of an agreement from staff and gave direction to staff.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Vice Mayor/Authority
Member/Commissioner/Board Member adjourned the Special Joint
Meeting at 6:35 p.m. .
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
Secretary, Community Improvement
Commission
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council, Alameda
Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,
Community Improvement Commission, and
Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
August 2, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 15, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
[Note : Councilmember Daysog arrived at 7:45 p.m. ]
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-403) Proclamation declaring the week of August 13-19, 2006 as
Farmers , Market Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Allen Moy,
Assistant Director of the Pacific Coast Farmers' Market
Association, and Ed Clark, President of the West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) .
Mr. Moy thanked Council for the proclamation and on-going support.
Mr. Clark stated WABA is delighted with the Farmers' Market;
invited Council to the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival in September.
Mayor Johnson stated people appreciate that the Farmers' Market is
open in the evenings on Thursdays.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5. [Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from
voting on the Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human
Relations Board minutes. ]
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by as asterisk preceding
the paragraph number ]
( *06-404) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community
Improvement Commission (CIC) Meeting held on July 26, 2006; the
Regular Meeting
1
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,2,"Special Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board
held on July 27, 2006; the Regular City Council Meeting held on
August 1, 2006; and the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse
and Redevelopment Authority, CIC and Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners Meeting held on August 2, 2006. Approved.
[Note: Vice Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the Special
Joint City Council and Social Service Human Relations Board
minutes. ]
(*06-405) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,857,231.92
(*06-406) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report
for the period ending June 30, 2006. Accepted.
(*06-407) Recommendation to adopt specifications and authorize
Request for Bids for a cleaning service for the Police
Administration Building for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 and 2007-2008.
Accepted.
(
(*06-408) Recommendation to enter into an extension of the
Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (Amendment No. 1) with Ballena Isle
Marina L. P. and Ballena Shores LLC . Accepted.
(*06-409) Recommendation to accept the work of SpenCon
Construction, Inc. for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk,
Curb, Gutter, Driveway and Minor Street Patching Phase 6, Fiscal
Year 2005-2006, No. P.W. 07-05-06. Accepted.
( *06-410) Resolution No. 14005, Authorizing the Purchase of One
New Fire Engine Using the City of Bakersfield Fire Department's
Competitive Bid Award. Adopted; and
(*06-410A)
Recommendation to approve a Purchase Agreement with
Pierce Manufacturing Inc. to Include Equipment in the Amount of
$393,393.13. Accepted.
(*06-411) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the
Lease of City-Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur
M. Jawad and Julia Jawad. Introduced.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-412) Recommendation to rename Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell
Avenue.
The Planner III provided a brief presentation.
Nick Cabral, Alameda, stated renaming Tinker Avenue has been a long
Regular Meeting
2
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,3,"time coming and will be a fresh start for the West End.
Don Petersen, Alameda, stated that he supports the staff
recommendation noted that Wilver is the correct first name;
recommended using the name Wilver ""Willie"" Stargell.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he liked the idea of using both
the given name and famous name; inquired whether Councilmember
Daysog would support the idea.
Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; stated all the
hard work should be attributed to the Encinal High School Alumni
Association.
Councilmember deHaan stated he had the privilege of attending
school with Willie Stargell he is pleased to have such a fine
person representing Alameda's gateway.
Mayor Johnson stated the correct spelling of the given name should
be verified; she liked the idea of using the given name and famous
name.
Henry ""Nick"" Evans, Alameda, commended Council for honoring one of
Alameda's greats.
Councilmember Daysog stated that everything written indicates that
Willie Stargell was a great baseball player and humanitarian;
Alameda owes a great amount of gratitude to Willie Stargell. other
young players are carrying on the tradition.
Mr. Cabral stated Willie Stargell gave stars out every time he hit
a homerun; suggested placing a star before and after his name.
Councilmember deHaan stated Willie Stargell had the nickname ""Pops""
which indicated how his fellow teammates felt about him; Willie
Stargell was involved with a Sickle Cell Anemia campaign.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation
with direction to use the name Wilver ""Willie"" Stargel]
and place a star before and after the name.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-413)
Ordinance No. 2949, ""Amending the Alameda Municipal Code
by Deleting Section 2-63.10, Third Party Claims, and by Adding a
New Section 2-65, Disposition of Property Consisting of Sections 2-
65. 1 through 2-65.5, to Article V, Administrative Policies and
Regular Meeting
3
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,4,"Protection Agreement.
Mayor Johnson stated that a number of cities have signed on to the
agreement; the matter should come to Council for approval.
Herb Behrstock, Alamedans for Climate Protection, stated he is in
favor of the agreement; the City has been doing great work to
continue keeping Alameda in the lead on climate protection; the
initiative helps take Alameda to the next level; 275 cities have
endorsed the resolution, which represents approximately 40 million
people; the resolution outlines twelve different areas to reduce
Regular Meeting
4
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,5,"greenhouse gas emissions.
Mayor Johnson requested that the item be placed on a future agenda
for Council action.
(06-416) Selection of two Councilmembers to serve on the Oakland
Alameda Ad Hoc Liaison Development Impact Committee.
Mayor Johnson stated that the cities of Oakland and Alameda agreed
to form the committee; Oakland Council President De La Fuente and
District Two Member Keringhan would serve; she was informed that
she should serve; Councilmember Matarrese indicated that he is
interested in serving.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated since the Oakland Council President is
serving; Mayor Johnson should serve.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of Mayor Johnson and
Councilmember Matarrese serving on the Oakland Alameda Ad Hoc
Liaison Development Impact Committee.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-417) Councilmember Matarrese requested an update on the
Planning Department staffing levels and permit process improvement
plans.
(06-418) Councilmember Matarrese stated the bus shelters on Santa
Clara Avenue at Willow Street and Walnut Avenue have taken a
beating; graffiti abatement has clouded the plastic roofing ;
requested looking into correcting the condition of the bus
shelters.
(06-419) Councilmember Matarrese stated the City had a favorable
ruling on the Beltline; thanked everyone involved; stated the City
has approximately $1 million in open space funds; suggested the $1
million be used to set up an escrow account as an added sign that
the City is serious about having the land as open space; everything
should be done to push the process to acquire the property
residents voted to have open space on the property in 2002.
(06-420) Councilmember deHaan stated that he hopes that
performance indicators are still being done on permitting and
inspection processes.
(06-421) Councilmember deHaan stated the City would be remiss in
overlooking Jean Sweeney's efforts with the Beltline matter;
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,6,"commended the legal team for defending the Beltline property.
(06-422) - ) Councilmember Daysog requesting looking into replacing
the three old flags coming into Alameda through the Tube.
(06-423 ) Mayor Johnson stated Jean Sweeney did a great job in
tracking down the Beltline Contract; she hopes that better contract
tracking has been implemented within the City.
(06-424) Mayor Johnson stated the Coast Guard Island ball field
would be a good facility to add to the City's inventory; the City
uses the Coast Guard field for soccer already suggested the Coast
Guard be approached to determine whether the City could use the
ball field for other uses; stated the City could contribute to some
improvements.
The City Manager stated the Recreation and Park Director has had
some discussions with the Coast Guard and is working on expanding
the use beyond the soccer.
Mayor Johnson stated people from the softball associations have
mentioned that the Coast Guard field would be the best field for
college exhibition games.
(06-425) Mayor Johnson stated the City has been reviewing the need
for additional senior housing over the years; requested that the
Housing Authority Executive Director provide an update to Council
and the public regarding adding senior housing to the City's
inventory.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 8:15p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Regular Meeting
6
Alameda City Council
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-15,7,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -AUGUST 15, 2006- -5:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:40 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : ouncilmembers
deHaan,
Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4.
Absent :
Councilmember Daysog - 1.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider
:
(06-400) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;
Significant exposure to litigation (54956.9 i Number of cases: Two.
(06-401) Conference with Property Negotiatori Property 1150
Ballena Boulevard; Negotiating parties: City of Alameda and
Mission Valley Properties, dba Ballena Shores LLC; Under
negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-402) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations
:
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees
Association, and Executive Management Group.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal
Counsel, Council was briefed on the disputes and provided
instructions to staff; regarding Conference with Property
Negotiator, staff provided information on the status of proposed
terms of negotiations, and Council provided instructions to staff;
regarding Conference with Labor Negotiators, the labor negotiator
explained the status of proposals involving Alameda City Employees
Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and
Management and Confidential Employees Association, and Council gave
parameters for subsequent negotiating sessions.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:40 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
August 15, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-08-24,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
THURSDAY- - -AUGUST 24, 2006- - -6:01 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-049) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property
:
Alameda Landing Negotiating parties City of Alameda Community
Improvement Commission and Catellus: Under negotiation : Price and
terms.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Chair Johnson announced that the Commission received a briefing
from its real property negotiator regarding potential sale price of
the property to ProLogis (Catellus) and gave director to negotiator
to pursue a potential structure to sell the property at least risk
to the Commission in the event the project is re-entitled.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
August 24, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-08-24.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 10:30 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present :
Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-428 - ) Proclamation expressing thanks to Contra Costa Newspapers
and Its Employees, Gary Kidwell and Michael Switzer.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mr. Kidwell
and Mr. Switzer.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Proclamation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Mayor Johnson stated the news racks have made a huge difference in
the business districts.
Ed Clark, West Alameda Business Association (WABA), stated former
Councilmember Karin Lucas raised the issue years ago; the City has
attractive newspaper racks thanks to everyone's efforts.
(06-429) Proclamation declaring September 17, 2006 as Alameda
Legacy Home Tour Day in the City of Alameda.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Judith Lynch,
Historical Advisory Board (HAB) Member, and Richard Knight, HAB
Member.
Councilmember deHaan noted the home tours have been held for at
least 32 years.
(06-430) Presentation by West Alameda Business Association
regarding the Peanut Butter and Jam festival.
Ed Clark, WABA, stated the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival would be
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,2,"the best ever invited everyone to attend; stated WABA is losing
Sheri Stieg as Executive Director; introduced the new Executive
Director, Kathy Moehring; presented Council with jars of Skippy
Peanut Butter.
Kathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, stated that she would
continue where Ms. Stieg left off; encouraged everyone to attend
the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival and outlined the event.
Mayor Johnson requested Ms. Moehring to explain why the event is
named the Peanut Butter and Jam Festival, to which Ms. Moehring
responded Skippy Peanut Butter was invented on Webster Street.
Mr. Clark noted Skippy contributed over $15,000 worth of free
Peanut Butter.
Mayor Johnson congratulated Ms. Moehring; stated Ms. Stieg did a
great job.
Councilmember deHaan suggested that Council present Ms. Stieg with
a proclamation; stated Webster Street has a new vitality.
(06-431) Library project update.
The Project Manager provided a brief update.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Authorizing Open Market
Purchase [paragraph no. 06-437], Resolution Authorizing Sale of
Emergency Generators [paragraph no. 06-438], Resolution Amending
Exhibit A - Compensation Plan [paragraph no. 06-439], and Public
Hearing to consider Ordinance [paragraph no. 06-442 ] were removed
from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. . ]
( *06-432) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on August 15, 2006. Approved.
(*06-433) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,047,654.18.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,3,"(*06-434) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report
for the Period Ending March 31, 2006. Accepted.
( *06-435) Recommendation to amend the Consultant Agreement with
Consolidated Construction Management extending the term, scope of
work and price for the Alameda Free Library, New Main Library
Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01. Accepted.
( (*06-436) Recommendation to reject Bids for the Modular
Recreational Building and Site Improvements at Washington Park.
Accepted; and
(*06-436A) Resolution No. 14006, ""Authorizing Open Market
Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda
City Charter for the Modular Recreational Building and Site
Improvements at Washington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17, and Authorizing
the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement for $650,000,
Including a 10% Contingency. Adopted.
(06-437) Resolution No. 14007, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase of
Twelve Vehicles from Good Chevrolet, Alameda in an Amount Not to
Exceed $251,230.00. Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the staff report indicates the
alternate fuel vehicle policy was considered but alternate fuel
vehicles are not recommended; inquired whether the use of mini
pickups was analyzed; stated a mini pickup was used for a recent
dedication ceremony and an electric flatbed could have been used.
The Public Works Director responded use is reviewed and discussed
with departments; stated the Recreation and Parks Director
indicated a flatbed could not have been used at the dedication
ceremony based on bed size; the vehicles being replaced carry
equipment, tools, parts and chemicals for pool maintenance, which
could not be accommodated by the size of the electric flatbed.
Public Works mini trucks travel outside of the City; the most
reliable electric flatbeds on the market only travel 25 miles per
hour, which would not work for travel out of Alameda.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the level of detail provided
by the Public Works Director be included in staff reports in the
future; inquired whether diesel fuel was evaluated for the one ton
dump trucks and three quarter ton pickup trucks.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
diesel is more expensive, which is one reason diesel was not
selected; that he is working on converting three existing vehicles
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,4,"Councilmember Daysog inquired about the plans for the $14,800 in
savings; inquired whether there is a fund for alternative fuel
vehicles.
The Public Works Director responded all vehicles are purchased from
the same fund; stated five electric vehicles would be purchased by
the end of the fiscal year; the savings return to the vehicle
replacement fund.
The City Manager stated the purchase is the result of the new
approach to manage vehicle replacement; savings remain in the fund
along with vehicle sales revenue.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-438) Adoption of Resolution Authorizing and Approving Sale of
Emergency Generators and Associated Electric Equipment to Cummins
West, Inc. for $832,000. Not adopted.
Hadi Monsef, Alameda, urged Council to reject the recommendation
stated $1 million of public funds would be given away; the
situation of the world could impact the supply of electricity to
the City: the future is too unstable.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether potential generator uses could arise
and whether the generators could be used in the event of a disaster
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,5,"or if the City's power supply were cut off; further inquired
whether the generators at the former Base make the generators
[proposed for sale] unnecessary.
The Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) General Manager responded
there is not a zero probability that the generators never would be
used; stated combustion turbines near Alameda Point would serve all
of the load assuming customers were not furiously using
electricity; typically people are responsible during
parts of the system might be down in the event of a major emergency
and the entire load would not be served.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the generators would be helpful if
power lines were down in an area.
The AP&T General Manager responded possibly; stated currently the
generators are permitted as stationary; moving the generators is
not a simple task; the system has to be tested; the process takes
96 to 100 hours assuming roads are passable.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City's emergency response
group has reviewed the asset to determine whether it is part of
disaster preparation.
AP&T General Manager stated AP&T has a smaller unit, which is very
portable and can be hooked into smaller service areas very easily.
The Disaster Preparation Officer stated any asset would be an
adjunct to the infrastructure; however, the equipment is semi- -
permanently mounted; the two turbines [near Alameda Point ] would
provide 50-60% of normal demand; the Public Utilities Board's
recommendation seems prudent having something more mobile would be
more appropriate; other types of equipment are more suitable for
mobile generation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the generators are included
in the disaster relief plan.
The Disaster Preparation Officer responded in the negative; stated
the combustion turbines would be used to provide back up power to
the City in the event of a power disruption; mobile units would
better serve specific areas of the City; the City would be better
served with additional mobile units.
Mayor Johnson stated perhaps the generators could be sold and
mobile units could be purchased.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the units were purchased in 2001 for $1.8
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,6,"million; inquired whether, including depreciation, the units are
being sold for the amount they are worth.
The AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what the money would be used for if the
units were sold.
The AP&T General Manager responded the money would be used for
other infrastructure needs; stated one capital project in mind is a
second feeder to Coast Guard Island.
Councilmember Daysog inquired what would be the cost of a mobile
unit, to which the Disaster Preparation Officer responded that he
does not know the amount.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the units have a 10-year
useful life period.
The AP&T General Manager responded the units have a 10 or 20 year
life period; stated maintenance staff indicated the life of the
generators is rapidly declining.
Councilmember Daysog stated the price is good if the life is 10-
years; said information would be useful; the conversation should be
from the vantage point of the objective that the City would achieve
from selling the generators; more information is needed.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like to know the impact on
disaster preparedness and whether proceeds should be used to
purchase mobile generators to make the City better prepared in the
event of a disaster; that she concurs with Councilmember Daysog
that more information is needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember
Daysog about understanding the goal; homeland security money should
be pursued for a second line to Coast Guard Island; the money from
the sale should replace the original use; more information on the
goal is needed.
The AP&T General Manager stated the units were purchased for
rolling blackouts; AP&T's portfolio has been properly planned and
the City should not be subject to rolling blackouts; the generators
are quite cumbersome and would not be best for disaster response ;
there are costs for maintenance and fuel.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether keeping the units in stand by
mode costs $30,000.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,7,"The AP&T General Manager responded the cost covers fuel and does
not include labor and maintenance.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the total cost is closer to
$50,000, to which the AP&T General Manager responded the cost is
around $50,000 to $60,000.
Councilmember deHaan stated the amount might be reasonable for
disaster preparation; the generators have not been used very much;
the viability of using the units has not been discussed; the matter
should be researched further to better understand the asset.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the $30,000 is spent only
when the generators are operated, to which the AP&T General Manager
responded the money is spent on testing.
The City Manager stated the matter would be brought back with
additional information.
Councilmember deHaan stated the additional information should
include more detail on whether the units could be made mobile,
whether the City should look into alternative, smaller generators
that are more mobile, and whether the units [proposed for sale]
have a place in disaster preparation.
Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like information on the
useful life and evaluation from an economic perspective.
The AP&T General Manager noted only line workers can move the
generators.
Councilmember deHaan stated perhaps easier connection points could
be set up in various spots throughout the City; the matter should
be researched further.
(06-439) Resolution No. 14008, ""Amending Exhibit A - Compensation
Plan Established by Council Resolution 13545 and Amended by
Resolutions 13626, 13689 and 13977 to Establish a Five-Day Workweek
Alternative with a Corresponding Salary Range for the
Classifications of Library Director and Recreation and Parks
Director. Amended ( including title) and adopted;
(06-439A) Resolution No. 13009, ""Amending the Management and
Confidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by
Establishing Salary Ranges for the Classifications of Principle
Executive Assistant, Purchasing and Payables Coordinator and
Supervising Animal Control Officer.' Adopted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
7
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,8,"(06-439B) Resolution No. 13010, ""Amending the Alameda City
Employees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the
Salary Range for the Classification of Transportation Coordinator. ""
Adopted.
Councilmember deHaan requested that the Deputy City Manager
discussion be addressed at the next Council meeting and the
remainder of the resolutions be adopted tonight.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolutions.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion.
Mayor Johnson clarified the motion is to adopt the resolutions,
with the exclusion of the Deputy City Manager position.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
( *06-440) - Resolution No. 14011, ""Appointing Rebecca A. Kozak to the
Bay Area Library Information System (BALIS) Advisory Board. ""
Adopted.
(*06-441) Ordinance No. 2951, ""Approving and Authorizing the Lease
of City-Owned Property at 3367 Fernside Boulevard to Arthur M.
Jawad and Julia Jawad. Finally passed.
(06-442) Public Hearing to consider Ordinance Reclassifying and
Rezoning Certain Property Within the City of Alameda from Open
Space (O) to Community Manufacturing Planned Development (CM-PD) by
Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. for that Property Located
at 500 Maitland Drive. Introduced.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City owned the property
and whether the property flipped over into the Harbor Bay
development area when Maitland Drive was changed.
The Planner III responded in the affirmative; stated over an acre
of City land on the other side of Maitland Drive moved to the
southwest side when Maitland Drive was realigned; the City sold the
land to Harbor Bay and amended the General Plan designation shortly
after; provided the exhibit to the Ordinance.
Mayor Johnson stated the proceeds of the sale went into an open
space fund.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what the new owner is proposing.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
8
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,9,"The Planner III stated the existing self-storage and RV storage
facility is proposing expansion; most of the land is zoned
Commercial Manufacturing Planned Development like the rest of the
business park; however, the over one acre area was never rezoned ;
the Planning Board approved all entitlements and recommends
approval of the rezoning.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what was the entire amount of the
addition, to which the Planner III responded five acres.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the gun range used to be
located on the site, to which the Planner III responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site is clean.
The Planner III responded there was discussion of lead radiation;
he could review the record.
Councilmember deHaan stated the area is a gateway furthering the
use of a storage yard does not improve eye appeal; he is concerned
about contamination.
The Planner III stated paving over lead in the dirt would contain
contamination
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board addressed
the matter; to which the Planner III responded the Planning Board
did not discuss lead contamination, but did discuss the area as a
gateway, landscaping requirements, adjacent landscaping and paths.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the property was transferred
as open space with the assumption it would remain open space.
Mayor Johnson responded the assumption was not that the property
would remain open space; the tradeoff was that a small, not very
useful open space parcel would be exchanged for $1 million that
would be designated to buy open space or support more useable open
space projects; the intent was always to allow commercial use.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated some of the proceeds went towards the
purchase of land adjacent to Towata Park.
Mayor Johnson stated the money was a proposed local match for an
Estuary Park grant that the City did not receive; the City is now
considering using the money to purchase the Beltline.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
9
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,10,"Councilmember Daysog stated that he voted against the matter
because he voted against having an RV park on the West End and to
be fair he did not want to support expansion of an RV park on
Harbor Bay.
Mayor Johnson noted the original RV park was a requirement the City
put on the developer.
The Planner III stated expansion was also part of the original
requirement.
Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the
following voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore and Matarrese
and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-443) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical
Advisory Board's denial of the alteration of more than thirty
percent of the value of historically designated single-family homes
at 1530, 1532, and 15321/2 Ninth Street and adoption of related
resolution.
The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Matarrese stated three duplexes are being created;
inquired whether the square footage of the lot complies with
Measure A, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether variances are not needed, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether some of the four outstanding
issues outlined in the staff report have been resolved.
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated trim
replacement has been resolved; new windows would be needed for
energy conservation.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the hardboard siding issue has
been resolved.
The Reconstruction Specialist II responded that she has been in
extensive conversations with Chris Buckley and the Alameda
Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) ; stated an agreement has
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
10
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,11,"been reached on three of the four items, with the exception of the
walkway; there is also agreement on the items in the most recent
letter AAPS submitted.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the walkway is a Design Review
item that is not within the purview of the Historical Advisory
Board (HAB) .
The Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the
HAB'S purview is alteration of historic structures.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Design Review would be
completed at the staff level, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the current square footage of each
structure.
The Reconstruction Specialist II responded 1530 and 1532 Ninth
Street are 1100 square feet and would be increased to 3106 square
feet; 1532 1/2 Ninth Street is 1066 and would be increased to 2632
square feet.
Councilmember Daysog requested an explanation of the ""Golden Mean. ""
The Supervising Planner responded the Golden Mean was accepted by
Council as part of the residential design guidelines and creates a
proportion for Victorians with the upper level larger than the
lower level; the upper level has to be 60%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired how long the Golden Mean has been in
place, to which the Supervising Planner responded less than two
years.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the site would be re-graded
to comply with the Golden Mean, to which the Supervising Planner
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the level of the
walkways, to which the Supervising Planner responded the walkways
would be level with the entry; retaining walls would be used.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether soil would be higher [than
the walkways], to which Supervising Planner responded in the
affirmative
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the [grading] approach has
been used before, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
11
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,12,"negative.
Councilmember deHaan questioned whether precedence would be set;
inquired about the driveway width.
The Supervising Planner stated the driveway is eight feet.
Mayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : Li-Sheng Fu, Architect.
Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Candace Fitzgerald, Alameda.
Neutral Christopher Buckley, AAPS; Richard W. Rutter, AAPS; and
Mark Irons, Historical Advisory Board (provided handout)
Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of the Hearing.
* * *
(06-444) Following Mr. Buckley's comments, Councilmember Matarrese
moved approval of continuing the meeting past 12:00 midnight.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
* * *
Mayor Johnson stated the house reminds her of a house on Pacific
Avenue. she would like more detail to make the buildings'
appearance look like the original character of the house; the side
views are not attractive; she is concerned with the size of the
structures.
Councilmember deHaan stated the project provides the key to
compromising the Golden Mean; further stated the project done with
the City's help on San Jose Avenue is disproportionate with the
rest of the community; in addition to the Golden Mean, the width of
the driveway is of concern.
Mayor Johnson clarified although AAPS is not supporting the
project, its position is not opposed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the Golden Mean is a visual
presentation based on aesthetics; achieving the Golden Mean by
grading is a legitimate approach; squeezing in the number of units
and parking spaces seems difficult; however, the project cannot be
turned down if it meets the Code. the Code should be changed if
Council does not like the way the Code works; that he would prefer
the front path to go straight to the door; the project is not
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
12
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,13,"simple and is massive.
Mayor Johnson stated Design Review is not being considered; that
she agrees with the HAB that the alterations as proposed would
adversely affect the historic significance of the dwellings; the
compromises reached are not enough to maintain the historic
character of the buildings review of the historic nature should
not be limited to the front.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would support sending the
matter back to see if the HAB can work out a solution to meet the
goal of maintaining the historic integrity as much as possible.
Councilmember Daysog stated a decision could be made on design
issues that the HAB reviewed; the main issue is the Golden Mean;
the Golden Mean is based on nature, such as trees and seashells;
digging down might satisfy the ratio on paper, but he is worried
and would like the HAB to review the matter further.
Mayor Johnson stated size is an issue and relates to historic
character.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that she has concerns with size, massing,
and the width of the driveway; however, the structures meet the
zoning regulations; the zoning regulations need to be changed or an
overlay needs to be added that applies to Victorians and historic
structures if Council does not like the way the project looks; the
project should not be penalized because Council does not like the
way it looks; sides of Victorian structures tend to be plain; the
structure is old and has not been cared for someone is willing to
""rehab"" the structures; being strict on every project might keep
people from attempting to fix historic structures; questioned
whether allowing historic structures to decay is better; stated
someone has to pay for the project; three of the four outstanding
issues have been resolved; the walkway is not under the HAB's
purview; that she supports overturning the HAB's decision and would
provide direction to staff to negotiate with the architect and
receive input from AAPS on the front walkway.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City has additional authority because
demolition of a historic structure is being requested; the proposal
is to almost triple the size of three adjacent structures
concurred with Councilmember Matarrese's suggestion to send the
matter back to the HAB; stated relative size to the neighborhood
should be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson; the
projects on Pacific and San Jose Avenues are disproportionate and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
13
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,14,"stretched the envelope; the project drops 18 inches to get into the
lower level; there has to be another wayi he is concerned with mass
and the eight-foot driveway the Fire Department should review the
driveway.
Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to clarify whether the
eight-foot driveway meets code.
The Supervising Planner stated the existing driveway can be
retained; further stated the minimum code for driveways now is
eight and a half feet.
Councilmember Matarrese stated relation to other houses in the
neighborhood is a planning and design issue.
Mayor Johnson stated more work needs to be done; size is relevant
to the historic character of the house; approving the demolition is
an extraordinary act and historic preservation should be expected
in return; the duplexes are going to be larger than some houses in
Alameda; limiting the size and requesting more details would
preserve the historic character.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to the
HAB to review the impact of the expansion on the historic nature of
the structures and review additional detail to bring the structures
closer to original form.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that one
of the structures could be moved closer to the property line, which
could change the opportunity of making the project work and change
access points.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Gilmore stated there are examples of
remodels that have gone wrong; the project meets Code but no one
likes the look; questioned when the Code would be changed stated
people trying to do projects should have a better idea about what
is acceptable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the big issue is the 30%
[demolition] or else the project should go forward.
Councilmember deHaan noted the City should be vigilant i City
funding is going into the project.
The Supervising Planner noted that the houses are covered in
asbestos shingles and the detail would not be known until the
shingles are removed; therefore, the drawing is devoid of some
details; the shadow line would be found to determine trim detail.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
14
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,15,"Mayor Johnson stated that she did not notice a provision that
requires restoration of trim detail.
The Supervising Planner stated a condition requires the project be
completed to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building
Director.
Mayor Johnson stated trim might help; hopefully something else can
be done to the side of the buildings.
Councilmember Matarrese clarified the intent of the motion is to
have the HAB come up with a solution and not send the matter back
to Council; requested staff to convey that the HAB should work with
the architect and owner to come up with a solution and address the
issues of: mass relative to the historic proportions of the
buildings and visual appearance from the street to ensure the
buildings are rehabilitated to look like Victorians, not something
else.
Mayor Johnson stated size is important to her; duplexes, with each
unit bigger than many homes in Alameda, are not needed.
Ms. Fitzgerald noted the average house size on Mastic Court is 850
square feet.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council would be pleased
with something short of complete restoration if the matter were
sent back to the HAB.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not expect complete restoration
and does not mind some increase in size.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants something to work; the
buildings are not attractive, are deteriorating and need to be
upgraded in a timely manner requested the matter be placed on the
next HAB Meeting agenda.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see how the
Golden Mean could be met without the grading option; all
alternatives should be exercised; the grading option might work
without handicap access.
The Planning and Building Director stated staff would work with the
architect and AAPS; since the buildings are not on the historic
list, the HAB review is only whether the building can be altered,
not all the details of restoration.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
15
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,16,"Mayor Johnson stated the HAB has authority to make the finding that
the project, as proposed, would adversely affect the historic
significance of the dwelling; further stated there has to be a
commitment that what is built maintains the historic significance
as the tradeoff to allow demolition.
Councilmember deHaan stated the buildings were constructed in the
1800's; the property is important even though the buildings are not
on the historic list.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the intention of the motion is to
have the HAB look at alternative plans to address the issue of mass
and the appearance from the front; that he does not want the
direction construed as a restoration critique; the Council wants
the project to appear that it belongs, people to know the buildings
are Victorians by looking at the buildings, and does not want the
buildings turned into something else; the HAB has to focus down
with input from AAPS, the architect and owner.
Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the HAB reviewed the grading
issue, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan restated that he seconded the motion.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote Ayes Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese and
Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1.
(06-445) Public Hearing to consider Adoption of Resolution
Amending Master Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise and Streamline
the Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire Departments Fee
Schedules. Continued.
The City Manager suggested that the matter be continued for 30
days.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the matter for
30 days.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(06-446 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 13-2.2(e) (Modifications, Amendments
and Deletions to the California Building Code) of Section 13-2 -
(Alameda Building Code) of Chapter XIII (Building and Housing), to
Incorporate Specific Requirements for the Installation of Fire
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
16
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,17,"Extinguishing Systems. Continued to September 19, 2006.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of continuing to matter for two
weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-447) - Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001, Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment City-wide; and
(06-447A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 30-4.9A.g.8 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading Space) of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations), to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions.
Continued to September 19, 2006.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the matter for
two weeks.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA
(06-448) - Michael Krueger, Alameda, stated the Santa Clara Avenue
and Willow Avenue transit shelter and the Santa Clara Avenue and
Walnut Street canopy need maintenance; graffiti is present at both
transit shelters.
Councilmember deHaan stated vandalism increases if condoned.
graffiti has not been brought down to a working level; efforts need
to be made to clean up graffiti immediately.
(06-449) Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Mayor Johnson for sticking
up for the historic preservation aspect of the Ninth Street
property and Commissioner Matarrese for coming up with a solution
on the Rutledge appeal.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(06-450) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for the Economic
Development Commission, Golf Commission, and Recreation and Park
Commission.
Mayor Johnson nominated Jessica Lindsey and Alan J. Ryan for
appointment to the Economic Development Commissioner, Betsy E.
Gammell for appointment to the Golf Commission, and Jo Kahuanui for
appointment to the Recreation and Park Commission.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
17
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,18,"(06-451)
-
Councilmember deHaan stated the Tube lighting has been on
the board for at least three years and CalTrans has deferred the
project for two years; he would like the issue to be tracked; the
project needs to move forward.
(06-452) Councilmember deHaan stated the Central Avenue
[crosswalk] embedded lighting is not functioning; inquired when the
Park Street embedded lighting would be done near Boniere Bakery.
(06-453) Councilmember deHaan stated that Park Street trash
receptacles overflowed from the weekend; trash pick up should be
brought under control within the City before the rainy season.
(06-454) Councilmember Matarrese stated repairs are being made on
Lincoln Avenue and Park Street overhead wires; half of the weed-
filled triangle near Tilden Way has been shaved away; inquired
whether the other half could be shaved and landscaped.
The City Manager responded the issue would be addressed.
(06-455) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether Long's Drug
Store was supposed to do some landscape upgrades.
The City Manager stated she should look into the matter.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see some
landscaping on the corner across from City Hall.
(06-456) Mayor Johnson stated that large weeds have grown at the
Otis Drive median off the Bay Farm Bridge.
The City Manager stated she would talk to the Public Works Director
about the matter.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular Meeting at 12:55 a.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
18
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,19,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:00 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
The Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:
(06-426) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :
Craig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :
Alameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees
Association, and Executive Management Group.
(06-427) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name
of case : Zornes V. City of Alameda et al.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened
and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Labor
Negotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on
the status of negotiations with Alameda City Employees Association,
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Management and
Confidential Employees Association and no action was taken;
regarding Conference with Legal Counsel, Council received a
briefing from Legal Counsel and gave direction on settlement of
this matter.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 7:25 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
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,20,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 5, 2006- - -7:27 P.M.
Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Roll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None.
MINUTES
(06-050) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and CIC Meeting
held on July 26, 2006; the Special Joint City Council, ARRA, CIC
and HABOC Meeting held on August 2, 2006; and the Special CIC
Meeting held on August 24, 2006. Approved.
Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.
Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
AGENDA ITEMS
(06-051) Recommendation to consider Appeal of Determination that
applicants are not eligible to purchase a below market rate home at
Bayport.
The Development Services Director provided a brief presentation.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether income is verified
immediately when applications are submitted, to which the
Development Services Manager responded income is verified at a
later time.
The Development Services Director continued the presentation.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired how many income tax years are
verified.
The Development Services Director responded that Alameda
Development Corporation (ADC) did the preliminary background work;
stated ADC received three years of income tax information prior to
2005; 2005 income tax information was not available; ADC received
incomplete information because only pay stubs were received; income
tax information was not received showing all income sources for the
entire household; ADC found outside employment from the Peralta
Community College District; only the primary employment source was
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
1
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,21,"provided.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the disputed overtime is from
the primary job, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Daysog stated that both the Rutledge and CIC figures
show approximately $2,900 for the Peralta College salary; inquired
whether the $2,900 is the actual dollar amount.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
W-2's have not been received from the Peralta Community College
District; $2,900 is an estimate.
Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the $2,900 estimate is for
actual teaching time, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
In response to Commissioner Daysog's inquiry regarding the income
threshold for a family of four, the Housing Development Manager
stated the income threshold is $83,800.
Chair Johnson inquired whether other information was incomplete in
the application package.
The Housing Development Manager responded ADC believed sufficient
information was available to determine that the Rutledge's income
was over the threshold; the Rutledge's only provided information
regarding the addition of the fifth household member when the City
inquired whether the Rutledge's wished to submit additional
information; Peralta Community College District pay stubs, 2005
income tax returns, and W-2's would be requested if the
determination process were starting now.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired why the Social Security
Administration overtime communication occurred.
The Development Services Director responded the Rutledge's wanted
to dispense with any overtime in order to qualify stated the City
requested a letter from the Social Security Administration stating
that no overtime would occur; a strong letter was not received; the
City determined that overtime could occur.
Commissioner deHaan inquired why an evaluation was not made for the
first group of applicants, and whether applicants were aware that
an evaluation would not be made initially.
The Development Services Director responded all applicants are
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
2
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,22,"evaluated; ADC sends a letter stating what is needed from the
applicants, such as W-2's checking account information, etc.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether an applicant's status is
checked and re-evaluated at the end of the process, to which the
Development Services Director responded the bank would re-evaluate
the status.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the entire process could take
six months.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;
stated the process includes workshops.
Commissioner deHaan stated an applicant's status could change
within six months; inquired whether applicants are informed that
wages should include overtime.
The Development Services Director responded the application
requests gross earnings ; stated overtime is a calculation of gross
earnings.
Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.
Proponents (In favor of appeal) : M. Daniele Adams, Social Security
Administration Isha Brown, Alameda; Jesusita Rutledge, Appellant
Duane Rutledge, Appellant; Hannah Israel, Appellant's dependant
and Jon Spangler, Alameda.
Opponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Belinda Racklin, Alameda
Development Corporation.
There being no further speakers, Chair Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Chair Johnson stated that she appreciates all speaker comments; the
Rutledge's acted in good faith throughout the application process;
rules need to be followed; rules become arbitrary without
consistency; overtime rules are applied in court every day; the
Rutledge's were given an opportunity to have the employer [Social
Security Administration] provide information stating that overtime
would not be allowed; said information was not received.
Commissioner Daysog concurred with Chair Johnson; stated the income
methodology was fair; ADC's and City staff's job is to find
information; the Rutledge's income exceeds the maximum threshold
for a family of four; the City needs to be fair to other families
going through the processi urged the Rutledge's to stick with the
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
3
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,23,"City throughout the next building phases.
Commissioner Gilmore stated applicants are required to provide
information on any status change, which includes a change in the
family size; the Social Security Administration letter was not as
clear as the testimony tonight she would have no problem
dismissing the $4,000 in overtime if a person in authority provided
a letter stating that no overtime would be allowed; the Peralta
College income is more problematic; documentation would need to be
provided from the College.
Commissioner deHaan stated past trends indicate that Mr. Rutledge
would teach this year; the evaluation period is important to keep
in mind; he is not happy with the prior procedure; the application
clearly indicates what the income should include.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether qualification was based on
the 2006 income.
The Development Services Director responded verification was to be
provided to the ADC by December twelve-month income was then
projected.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether a twelve-month window was
projected from the time of the application.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative
earnings are projected forward twelve months after the application
is complete and an earning pattern is reviewed.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether January 2006 to December
2006 income was used for evaluation purposes.
The Development Services Director responded income was to cover
March 2006 to March 2007.
Commissioner Matarrese stated income projection should be tighter
since it is now September an accurate income could be projected if
the Social Security Administration certified that no overtime would
occur and the Peralta Community College District certified that Mr.
Rutledge is on sabbatical figures could be reviewed to see if the
income falls within the window.
Commissioner Daysog stated 300 affordable homes would be built at
Alameda Point west of Main Street; the precedent should be to work
with a process that is fair.
Commissioner Gilmore stated documented changes are important a
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
4
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,24,"paper trail is needed for the file.
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's had ample time to provide
documentation.
Chair Johnson stated the Rutledge's could continue to find ways to
change circumstances in order to qualify.
The Development Services Director stated the policy would need to
be changed if applicants were allowed to change working status to
become eligible.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether another home selection would
occur, to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Commissioner deHaan inquired when validation would be initiated for
the next draw.
The Development Services Director responded as soon as the
placement is complete for the current homes.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the application process
allows applicants to provide evidence of a change in status during
the evaluation period, to which the Development Services Director
responded in the affirmative.
Commissioner Matarrese stated individuals have no control over
furloughs and overtime cuts; the current process is valid and
allows people to appeal; verification is missing from the Social
Security Administration and Peralta Community College District.
Commissioner Gilmore stated the overtime calculation was used to
disqualify the Rutledge's; now opportunities are not available to
make half of the excess income.
Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's would be eligible for the
next housing program because the application would be different
based upon adding a fifth person to the household.
Chair Johnson stated allowing individuals to continually change
information on the application is unfair to other applicants;
applicants could tailor information to meet the qualifications
The Development Services Director stated the Rutledge's income was
reviewed for a five-member family and the income was still slightly
above the threshold.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
5
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,25,"Legal Counsel stated the overtime issue is relevant and the
testimony is very good for the record; the past standard allowed a
written letter from someone in authority stating there would be no
overtime ; an applicant taking a sabbatical has never been accepted
in order to disallow income; she is not sure whether a sabbatical
would resolve the issue.
Chair Johnson stated taking a sabbatical would be a voluntary act.
Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether the snapshot covers the
period from March 2006 to March 2007, to which the Development
Services Director responded the snapshot covers a projection moving
forward to March 2007.
Commissioner Gilmore stated January 2006 through March 2006 was
used to project the Peralta College income.
Chair Johnson clarified that January 2006 through March 2006 was
used to project the Peralta College income from March 2006 to March
2007; inquired whether fall and winter Peralta College income was
not assumed.
The Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.
stated Mr. Rutledge would be obligated to advise the City if he
were going to teach.
Commissioner Daysog stated Mr. Rutledge had every expectation to
teach if enough students enrolled; reasonable assumptions were made
from the best available information.
Commissioner Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Chair Johnson seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Commissioner deHaan inquired when the evaluation
period for the next phase of houses would take place, to which the
Development Services Director responded the evaluation is going on
now.
Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Rutledge's could be placed
in the next evaluation process.
Chair Johnson responded other applicants have been disqualified and
have not been put back into the process.
On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioner Daysog and Chair Johnson - 2. Noes:
Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, and Matarrese - 3.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
6
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,26,"Commissioner Gilmore moved approval of allowing the Rutledge's to
attempt to provide documentation regarding Social Security
employment status and to have staff perform an evaluation based
upon projected income from March 2006 to March 2007 to determine
whether or not the Rutledge's fit into the income category for a
five-person household.
Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the Social Security
Administration income would be frozen if there were no more
overtime.
Commissioner Gilmore responded the income would be for overtime
earned up until September 30, 2006; overtime would be zero from
October 1 though March if the Social Security Administration]
letter were submitted.
Chair Johnson inquired what happens if a letter is not received, to
which Commissioner Gilmore responded the Rutledge's would not
qualify.
Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added to the motion
requesting documentation on the added dependent; inquired whether
the documentation is on record and validated.
The Housing Development Manager responded the dependent has been
accepted.
Commissioner deHaan stated that he wants the dependent validated
and the Social Security [letter regarding overtime) validated by
the [Social Security] Finance Director.
Commissioner Gilmore suggested that the requirement be that the
letter comes from someone in authority.
Mayor Johnson suggested that the language state ""the appropriate
person"" and staff could get the information from said appropriate
person.
Legal Counsel stated real information is being requested; Peralta
College income needs to be counted for the fall and into 2007;
staff does not have said information.
Chair Johnson requested that the motion include that the Rutledge's
provide all necessary documentation to provide staff with actual
information.
Commissioner deHaan requested a caveat be added into the motion
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
7
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,27,"that all pay increases be projected also.
The Development Services Director requested a timeframe for the
applicant to submit the information.
Chair Johnson stated three weeks is a generous amount of time.
Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.
The Executive Director requested clarification about the request
for verification of the dependent; stated staff accepted the
dependent as a family member.
Chair Johnson stated whatever is acceptable to the Internal Revenue
Service.
The Development Services Director stated that the fifth member does
not have to be a dependent and only has to be part of the family
unit.
Commissioner Matarrese restated the motion is that the Rutledge's
are required to provide a letter from the appropriate authority at
the Social Security Office stating that there would be no overtime
from October 1, 2006 through the end of March 2007; that all
reportable income from Peralta College and any other source be
factored in; and all documentation needs to be submitted by
September 30, 2006.
Commissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan requested that
motion include salary increases be projected forward if trainee
status changes and there is an increase.
Commissioner deHaan requested that the motion be modified to
require the Social Security Administration to provide its overtime
policy and [overtime] percentage projection.
Chair Johnson stated there needs to be a statement that there is or
is not [overtime] income.
Commissioner Matarrese stated the motion includes receiving a
letter indicating that there would be no overtime.
The Executive Director clarified that the process was to resolve
the appeal, not to set a precedent for future evaluations.
Commissioner Matarrese stated a process is not being established;
information is being gathered to adjudicate the appeal.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
8
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-05,28,"Commissioner Daysog stated the Rutledge's were given ample time to
make the best and strongest case possible and failed to do so; the
CIC is opening a can of worms; other applicants could get letters
from non-decision makers. encouraged Commissioners to reconsider
and approve the staff recommendation
Commissioner Gilmore stated the appeal would be denied if the
Rutledge's do not provide documentation from a person in authority
at the Social Security Administration.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote: Ayes : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and
Chair Johnson - 4. Noes Commissioner Daysog - 1.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the
Special Meeting at 10:29 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
Secretary
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Meeting
Community Improvement Commission
9
September 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-14,1,"MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL
AND PUBLIC UTILITIES BOARD (PUB) MEETING
THURSDAY- - -SEPTEMBER 14, 2006- -6:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:10 p.m.
Roll Call -
Present : Councilmembers deHaan Matarrese and Mayor
Johnson; and Board Members Bangert,
Holmes, Kurita, McCahan, and McCormick -
8
Absent :
louncilmembers Daysog and Gilmore - 2.
(06-457)
Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property: 1041
W. Midway and various easements in Alameda, California; Negotiating
parties City of Alameda and Alameda Power and Telecom; Under
negotiation: Price and terms.
(06-458) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators :
Human Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee organizations :
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and
Confidential Employees Association, and Alameda City Employees
Association.
Following the Closed Session, the Special Joint Meeting was
reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Property, the
Council and PUB received a briefing from real property negotiator;
no action was taken; and regarding Labor, the Council and PUB
discussed labor negotiations regarding the relevant bargaining
units; no action was taken.
Adjournment
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Special Joint Meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Special Joint Meeting
Alameda City Council and
Public Utilities Board
September 14, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,1,"MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- - - SEPTEMBER 19, 2006- -7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.
ROLL CALL -
Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,
Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.
Absent :
None
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(06-463) - Proclamation declaring the week of September 17-23, 2006
as National Pollution Prevention Week.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Ed Clark with
Webster Street Pharmacy, and Phillip Jaber with Versailles
Pharmacy.
Mr. Jaber stated the Bay-safe Mercury Thermometer Exchange Program
has been well received.
Mayor Johnson stated that people should know that mercury
thermometers can be exchanged for a new mercury-free digital
thermometer.
Mr. Clark urged the public to bring expired prescription
medications to Webster Street Pharmacy or Versailles Pharmacy for
disposal.
Councilmember deHaan stated mercury thermometers have been
collected for more than fifteen years; he is surprised mercury
thermometers still exist.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving Amendment No.
2
[paragraph no. 06-468] and Resolution Establishing Guidelines
[paragraph no. 06-469 were removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Vice Mayor Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent
Calendar.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
1
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,2,"unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding
the paragraph number. ]
Following the discussion of the items pulled from the Consent
Calendar, speaker David Kirwin requested to speak on the
Recommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9-01-1 [paragraph no.
*06-466] and the recommendation to accept and authorize to record a
Notice of Completion [paragraph no. *06-467]
(*06-464) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings
held on September 5, 2006. Approved.
(*06-465) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,732,440.43.
(*06-466) Recommendation to adopt Specification No. MSP9-01-1 - and
authorize request for bids for a Vehicle Tow Contract for the
Police Department. Accepted.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Buy Alameda campaign could be
improved through the bidding process.
(*06-467) Recommendation to accept and authorize to record a Notice
of Completion for Bayport Residential Phase 2 Trunk Line Demolition
and Grading Improvements. Accepted.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated Public Works staff should be
responsible for final inspection before a Notice of Completion is
signed.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to explain whether Public Works signs
off on the work.
The Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated
Development Services works with the Public Works Department i Public
Works approves the projects.
Councilmember Daysog stated the staff report indicates that the
original engineer's estimate was $1.68 million; the total project
cost was $1.40 million; $270,000 was saved.
Councilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendations to
adopt Specification No. MSP9-01- [paragraph no. *06-466] and to
accept and authorize to record a Notice of Completion [paragraph
no. * F66-467].
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
2
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,3,"voice vote - 5.
(06-468) Resolution No. 14012, ""Approving Amendment No. 2 to the
1986 Alameda County Transportation Expenditure Plan. Adopted.
Councilmember Daysog stated the issue has been controversial in the
City of Hayward; the City is being asked to join other Alameda
County cities in voting for a change to the Measure B funding
program; some people do not want to widen Mission Boulevard; stated
he would abstain on the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether any other projects were remaining,
to which the Public Works Director responded two projects remain.
James O'Brien, Alameda County Transportation Authority (ACTA)
Project Control Team, stated the Hayward Bypass project was more
controversial ten capital projects were listed in the Expenditure
Plan; Amendment 1 addressed the first segment of the Route 238 and
Route 84 project and was replaced with a set of improvements to
address the congestion problems within the corridor; Amendment 2
addresses the connection between Mission Boulevard and Interstate
880; Union City and Fremont originally opposed the connection; the
Expenditure Plan Amendment is needed because of the significant
variance from the plan description.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Board of Supervisors voted on
the amendment.
Mr. O'Brien responded the ACTA Board voted four to one; stated
Supervisor Haggerty voted no.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Mayor of Hayward voted.
Mr. O'Brien responded the Mayor of Hayward voted in favor of the
amendment stated the matter needs to go to cities representing the
majority of the population in incorporated Alameda County; the
matter has been approved by ten of the fourteen cities; Alameda's
vote would push the vote over the 50% line.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Fremont and Union City approved the
amendment, to which Mr. O'Brien responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
louncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-469) Resolution No. 14013, ""Establishing Guidelines for
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
3
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,4,"Reimbursement of Per Diem Allowance for City of Alameda Business
Travel. "" Adopted.
David Kirwin, Alameda, stated the $64 per diem rate only should
apply when in San Francisco.
The Finance Director stated the rate has not been updated since
1996; San Francisco was used because the area is the closest
geographical area reported in the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
1542 Publication; the $64 per day rate is the maximum amount
further stated the proposed resolution would change the processes
to automatically refer to the IRS publication for per diem
reimbursement, the same as mileage reimbursement.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether reimbursement would be less
than $64 per day if expenses were less, to which the Finance
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Daysog stated that $46 in 1996 dollars equals $64 in
2006 dollars when you use 4% annual rate of inflation.
Councilmember deHaan stated he did not see where the resolution
language included ""up to.'
The City Manager read the language in the proclamation addressing
the issue.
In response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding reimbursement, the
Finance Director responded receipts would need to be submitted.
The Finance Director responded in the negative; stated receipts
would need to be submitted.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(06-470) Resolution No. 14014, ""Reappointing Jessica Lindsey to the
Economic Development Commission. Adopted;
(06-470A) Resolution No. 14015, ""Appointing Alan J. Ryan to the
Economic Development Commission. "" Adopted;
(06-470B) Resolution No. 14016, ""Reappointing Betsy E. Gammell to
the Golf Commission. Adopted; and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
4
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,5,"(06-470C) Resolution No. 14017, ""Reappointing Jo Kahuanui to the
Recreation and Park Commission. "" Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.
Vice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which passed by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the oath and presented certificates of
appointment.
(06-471) Resolution No. 14018, ""Endorsing and Supporting the U.S.
Conference of Mayors' Climate Protection Agreement."" Adopted.
Mayor Johnson stated the United States Conference of Mayors was
requesting a commitment for support at the local level.
The Supervising Planner stated the proposed resolution follows and
supports the resolution to join the International Council for Local
Environment Initiatives which was adopted in July 2006.
Mayor Johnson stated the matter was placed on the agenda to ensure
that there was follow through with the commitment.
Councilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(06-472 - ) Public Hearing to consider ZA06-0001, Zoning Ordinance
Text Amendment City-wide; and
(06-472A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Amending Subsection 30-4.9A.g.8 (Off-Street Parking and
Loading Space) of the C-C Community Commercial Zone of Chapter XXX
(Development Regulations) to Add a Process for Parking Exceptions.
Introduced.
The Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated downtown parking needs to be provided; she
understands the City wants to de-emphasize the automobile in the
General Plan; however, people still need places to park; Webster
Street parking needs to be addressed immediately; she agrees with
changing the requirements; a structured parking lot should be
considered.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the use runs with the owner or
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-09-19,6,"building, to which the Supervising Planner responded the use runs
with the land.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether a new building owner would get
the previous owner's reduced parking if the use would be different,
to which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what would happen if a ground floor
office was replaced by a retail store with more foot traffic.
The Supervising Planner responded ground floor office is not
allowed in the Community Commercial (CC) District.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired about parking in lieu fees.
The Supervising Planner stated that parking in lieu fees are
triggered when a building or use cannot meet the parking standards ;
a fee is paid to assist the City with payment for off-street
parking or a parking structure; parking waivers can be requested;
parking in lieu requests are considered by the Planning Board.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the parking in lieu fees has a
range or a set amount per parking space.
The Supervising Planner responded the parking in lieu fees are
based on the assessed value times 250 square feet.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired what a parking study would cost, to
which the Supervising Planner responded she did not think a parking
study would cost as much as the cost of parking.
Councilmember deHaan stated parking in lieu fees are approximately
$6,000 and are predicated on the property use; a lot of retail
tenants do not stay very long.
The City Attorney stated the ordinance specifies that control would
be for the use as well as the structure.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a use permit continues unless the
use is discontinued for a year; further inquired whether the permit
could run with the use of the land.
The City Attorney responded the permit does not run with the land;
a new parking exception would be needed if there are structure and
use alterations.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance language was
patterned after other cities.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
6
September 19, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-09-19.pdf