body,date,page,text,path
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