body,date,page,text,path
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,2005-04-06,5,"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,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,2006-10-04,5,"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,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,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,2008-11-18,5,"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,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,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,2011-03-02,5,"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,2011-11-02,5,"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,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
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,2005-01-18,5,"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,2005-01-31,5,"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,2005-02-01,5,"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,2005-02-15,5,"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,2005-03-01,5,"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,2005-03-15,5,"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,2005-04-05,5,"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,2005-04-19,5,"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,2005-05-03,5,"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,2005-05-12,5,"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,2005-05-17,5,"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,2005-06-07,5,"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,2005-06-21,5,"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,2005-06-28,5,"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,2005-07-05,5,"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,2005-07-19,5,"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,2005-08-02,5,"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,2005-08-16,5,"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,2005-09-06,5,"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,2005-09-20,5,"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,2005-10-04,5,"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,2005-10-18,5,"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,2005-11-01,5,"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,2005-11-15,5,"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,2005-12-06,5,"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,2005-12-20,5,"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,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,2006-02-07,5,"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,2006-02-21,5,"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,2006-03-07,5,"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,2006-03-21,5,"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,2006-04-04,5,"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,2006-04-18,5,"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,2006-05-02,5,"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,2006-05-16,5,"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,2006-06-06,5,"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,2006-06-07,5,"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,2006-06-20,5,"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,2006-07-05,5,"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,2006-07-18,5,"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,2006-07-26,5,"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,2006-08-01,5,"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,2006-08-15,5,"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,2006-09-05,5,"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,2006-09-19,5,"(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,2006-10-03,5,"Villareal and presented certificates of appointment.
(06-501) Resolution No. 14023, ""Appointing David J. Burton as a
member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force. Adopted
(06-501A) Resolution No. 14024, ""Appointing Stanley M. Schiffman as
a member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force. Adopted ;
(06-502B) Resolution No. 14025, ""Appointing Ron Silberstein as a
member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force. Adopted;
(06-501C) Resolution No. 14026, ""Appointing Lizette Weiss as
a
member of the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force. Adopted; and
(06-501D) Recommendation to accept report on the membership of the
Climate Protection Campaign Task Force.
The Planning and Building Director stated staff would be able to
start working with the Task Force later in the month to set goals
for the local action plan to reduce emissions and greenhouse gases
with adoption of the resolutions; the project is very exciting.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions and
approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that leaf blowers and a vehicle
use plan be added to the list for the Task Force to work on.
The City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of
appointment.
Mayor Johnson stated many highly qualified individuals applied and
were willing to volunteer time to the community; thanked the newly
appointed Task Force members.
Mr. Schiffman stated he sees the Task Force as a stewardship for
the environment; the goal is to leave a cleaner and healthier place
for future generations he is delighted and honored to serve.
(06-502) Recommendation to allocate funding for the purchase of
the Beltline property and the park design and development process.
The Recreation and Park Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember Daysog stated the park design and development process
seems to be staff driven; inquired whether thought has been given
to a community driven process with staff support.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 3, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-10-17,5,"be on the original property, to which Mr. McGillis responded
possibly.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether 242 units would be on the ten
acres.
Mr. McGillis responded in the affirmative. stated there is more
land; the 25% inclusionary criteria triggered the State density
bonus.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other things have been put
into the equation to push the number up, to which Mr. McGillis
responded in the affirmative.
Following Greg Harper's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired what are
the options in terms of rezoning the property; stated Project Site
#9 structures are very tall and not like other Alameda waterfront
property.
The Supervising Planner responded staff recommended R-4 with a
Planned Development (PD) overlay stated Housing Element
consistency could be maintained with R-3/PD or R-2/PD.
Mayor Johnson inquired about the height limit, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the height limit could be addressed
with a PD overlay.
Mayor Johnson stated the structures look like a big wall on the
waterfront; now is not the time to start this type of development ;
inquired what would be the height limit for R-2/PD, to which the
Supervising Planner responded 30 feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the height limit is higher for R-
4/PD, to which the Supervising Planner responded the height limit
would be 35 feet.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether height adjustments could be made
with a PD overlay, to which the Supervising Planner responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the drawings do not show 300 feet
between the houses and the shoreline; the General Plan requires 300
feet; inquired whether ten acres are approximated when the 300 feet
is carried from east to west across the parcel's waterfront, to
which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated MU-5 does not just accommodate the
parcel referenced by the attorney and architect, but also
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 17, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-10-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-14,5,"close to the intersection; the paint has worn off of red curbs, in
particular along Central and Lincoln Avenues.
(06-549) - Councilmember deHaan stated that he would like to know
when the ten-year financial forecast item would be scheduled.
(06-550) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the City received
feedback on the Theater Cineplex funding.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated City staff,
the developer and the Bank of Alameda met last week to review
conditions and confirm that there are no major issues; closing is
expected to occur in December the developer has provided the bank
with the appraisal, plans and specs, the initial deposit, and the
partnership capital account statement; acceptance of the general
contractor still remains; the developer is negotiating with Overaa,
the City's contractor; the final construction bid and contract have
to be finalized and submitted to the bank; it is on schedule and
should close in December.
Councilmember deHaan stated monthly updates were provided on the
Library project; suggested similar briefings be scheduled at least
bi-monthly.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested that the updates be monthly.
Councilmember deHaan concurred that he would prefer monthly
updates.
Mayor Johnson noted that the public is curious because work is
underway.
(06-551 - ) Councilmember deHaan congratulated Mayor Johnson, and
Councilmember Matarrese on being re-elected and Lena Tam on being
elected to fill Councilmember Daysog's seat.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
meeting at 8:23 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown
Act.
Adjourned Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 14, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-14.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-11-21,5,"six years restricting homeowners on the Alameda side of the Estuary
from making any improvements; three signature property improvements
went very quickly along the Channel; the number one concern is for
property owners on the Alameda side of the Estuary continued
dredging and regulating of the Canal is also a concern; no action
was taken for the Canal obstructions along the Dutra property a
couple of years agoi three tug boats were sunken and no one wanted
to take responsibility; it took three years to get rid of the three
tug boats; he has big concerns that reluctant responsibility will
be no responsibility; the Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is
needed more than ever because of transportation issues; staff
should be directed to be aggressive and talk to the Congressional
delegates to change the orders under which the Army Corps of
Engineers is operating; consideration should be given to
compensating Alameda for the moratorium's affect on deferred
maintenance over the years.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated water reached up to docks at one time
deferred maintenance has resulted in more mud than water; it
appears that the Army Corps of Engineers would do the dredging as
long as it is commercially navigable. the homeowners would be left
high and dry; the Army Corps of Engineers may dredge the Channel
years from now; commercial ships would be able to go in and out
the homeowners or the City would be stuck dredging the portion of
the land to allow homeowners' boats to get out; questioned why the
City would want to take the land.
The District Counsel stated the Army Corps of Engineer's authority
to dredge is under the WRDA; Congress has set a standard where the
cost benefit ratio has to be greater than one in order to spend
federal dollars; the land transfer is a different real estate issue
than dredging.
Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the City would be responsible
for the dredging if the City takes the land; stated residents would
be looking to the City so that docks could be used; questioned why
the City would want to take on the responsibility for dredging;
stated the Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for
dredging even if funds are not available.
The District Counsel stated that no legal mechanism is available
for the property owners to force the City to dredge private docks.
Mayor Johnson inquired how the cost benefit analysis could be
brought to Level One in order to have the Army Corps of Engineers
dredge.
The District Counsel responded staff would be provided with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 21, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-11-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2006-12-05,5,"requested.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the Applicant could get more square
footage by going over to the existing wall.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the project is not compatible with
the adjacent and neighboring buildings and does not match the ranch
style houses the project must meet all three requirements for
design review approval.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant or architect were
present further inquired whether the Applicant wished to speak.
The Applicant indicated the architect was not present and she did
not wish to speak.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the project does not meet the
criteria for design review approval; the Appellant has requested
that the project be denied as proposed and that the addition be
sufficiently set back to retain the one-story residential
neighborhood character.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant is working with the
neighborhood on the ordinance issue, to which the Appellant
responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the area is predominately a single-story
neighborhood; the ordinance could be modified to reflect that the
neighborhood is a single-story area.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated she wished the project architect was present ;
she would prefer to have the project meet the size and scale of the
neighborhood and reflect the neighborhood's character.
Councilmember deHaan stated the lot configuration provides the
Applicant with an opportunity to build a single-story addition; he
would be leery of a second-story addition; he is concerned with the
sunlight factor.
Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the current zoning code permits second-
story additions if design guidelines are meti R-1 neighborhoods
would be down zoned across the City if Council unilaterally decided
not allow the Applicant to build a second-story addition; arguments
could be made regarding the appearance of the second-story
addition; the shading issue might not be eliminated by moving the
second-story addition closer to the property line.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 5, 2006",CityCouncil/2006-12-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-02,5,"portion of the hearing.
Following Ms. Sellers' comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether the
Planning Board's vote was three in favor, one abstention and one
opposition and was not a denial of the design review, to which the
Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed Borders would
share the same loading dock as Safeway.
The Planning and Building Director responded in the negative;
stated the proposed Borders would share a loading dock with the
other stores facing the pedestrian mall.
Councilmember deHaan stated he has heard continuing concerns
regarding Safeway's loading dock; Safeway is operating an on-line
delivery service also; there is no access for staging the vans and
vendor off-loading; a letter was sent to Safeway to resolve the
issue; he does not see how a letter would resolve the issue; a
design change is necessary; there is an opportunity to look at
Building 300 and change the design the tower was initially 52 feet
and was dropped to 48 feet and then to 36 feet; inquired whether
the tower would be used for any mechanical support of the building.
The Planning and Building Director responded the tower would have a
café.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the tower had an elevator
shaft, to which the Planner III responded the tower is decorative.
The Architect stated a lot of visual elements have been added to
create architectural variety; stated the tower is only
architectural
Councilmember deHaan inquired what is the height for the Bed Bath
and Beyond facades, to which the Architect responded approximately
25 to 27 feet.
Councilmember deHaan stated a number of Planned Development
Amendment (PDA) concerns were raised in 2003 regarding conditions
of additional entitlements; inquired whether the issues raised by
Ann Cook, Planning Board Member, were presented in 2003 when the
original entitlements were approved; stated issues addressed the
east/west sidewalk situation, transit stops, landscaping, shoreline
area, parking, restroom and gas station.
The Planning and Building Director responded said issues were
discussed in 2003.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-01-16,5,"The Supervising Planner responded the existing asphalt path is on
the Grand Marina property; stated the Applicant would do all the
landscaping and improvements.
Mayor Johnson inquired who owns the Grand Marina, to which the
Supervising Planner responded the Grand Marina is under lease to
Peter Wang.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has the ability to require
Mr. Wang to maintain the area at a certain level, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the ability is real, to which the
Supervising Planner responded he was not sure.
Mayor Johnson stated she could see where the Planning Board would
prefer concrete if the City does not have the ability to ensure
proper maintenance.
The Supervising Planner stated the property is subject to a Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) permit.
Councilmember deHaan inquired who paid for the Kaufman and Broad
trail, to which the Assistant City Manager responded the Municipal
Services District.
The Public Works Director stated the trail is maintained by the
Recreation and Park Department; funding is through the Municipal
Services District.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board wanted to
replicate the Kaufman and Broad development pathway.
The Public Works Director responded maintenance is part of the
Grand Marina lease requirement stated the Leasee would be required
to maintain the area at a level that is acceptable to the City.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wang is in compliance with every
lease condition, to which the Public Works Director responded that
he did not know.
The Supervising Planner stated concrete would be easier to
maintain; the Master Plan covers the entire area; Council could
make maintenance recommendations and implement the recommendation
in the Grand Marina lease.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Bridgeside gravel is starting to
erode; material and maintenance policies should be reviewed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-01-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-06,5,"Councilmember deHaan inquired whether consideration was given to
impacts on other taxing entities; further inquired whether the
School District would be impacted.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all
entities have pass-through agreements; stated AB 1290 sets pass-
throughs statutorily; the School District receives some portion of
the proceeds ; the City provided assistance with the Ruby Bridges
Elementary School and joint use park; the School District benefits.
Councilmember deHaan stated money would not be going to other
taxing entities after 35 years; some money goes to the County.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated every
taxing entity reaps the benefits of increased property values when
the project area goes away.
Councilmember deHaan stated the clock would start over again by
merging with another development area.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated she was not
sure whether the clock would start over by merging with another
project.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the BWIP final date is
2025.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she is
not sure whether the final date extends another twenty years passed
2011.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the ability to pay back
bonds out of proceeds would be compromised by being close to the
end of the redevelopment area time limit.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the
negative stated outstanding debt can be serviced with the
collection of sufficient increments at the end of the project time
limit.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why timing is not being set;
stated the City would have ten years to pay the bond back if the
bond was issued on the last day.
The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the
limits are set automatically by statue stated tax increments can
be collected for another ten years after the project area expires.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-02-20,5,"inquired why traffic impacts would not be assumed when
transportation access is not good.
The Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore was
referring to the total size of the store.
Councilmember Gilmore responded Target needs to generate sale
numbers to make the store work; stated the Bayfair Target is a
regional shopping center that would draw more consumers because of
the better transportation corridor; the proposed Target has the
same size retail space and worse transportation access ; inquired
why a same size store would be built if retail sales would not be
the same.
The Supervising Planner responded the traffic study is based on the
total square footage of the shopping center, including Target ;
stated measurements are made by either counting cars or calculating
standard trip generation factors for different types of businesses.
Councilmember Matarrese stated impacts are not being debated ;
questions need to be answered on whether the draft EIR has
deficiencies; he does not believe the proposed Target would have no
traffic impact.
The Supervising Planner stated the draft EIR identifies significant
traffic impacts and includes mitigation measures.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is some flexibility
for when the work should be done or for adjustments to data
collection methods.
The Supervising Planner responded the project has been in the
City's hands for two years; stated the process should have been
completed a year ago under the Permit Streamlining Acti he would
not recommend waiting to update the traffic study; the existing
draft EIR includes some mitigation monitors.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the final EIR would
describe methods used to do the additional work, to which the
Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there are unanswered questions the
Contract needs to be approved to get the work done; inquired
whether Ms. Risley's issue would be addressed in the final EIR.
The Supervising Planner responded the piece mealing comments have
been submitted and would be addressed in the final EIR.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-06,5,"moves through inquired whether the location of the 50 - line bus
stop on Otis Drive is at the intersection of Willow Street.
The Program Specialist II responded the stop is east of Willow
Street.
Councilmember deHaan stated if the 63-line stops at Willow Street,
there would be two bus stops servicing different needs within a
close area; requested ridership data for the 50-line at said stop.
The Program Specialist II responded that he did not have said
information.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the characteristics would be
similar since both are servicing the hospital and shopping area, to
which the Program Specialist II responded similar land uses are
served, however the destinations differ.
Mayor Johnson requested the Police Department to comment on current
safety issues.
Traffic Officer Rodrigue stated the safety concerns have been met
due to Public Works installing in-ground lights, bollards and new
signs and markings at the crosswalk; the crossing guards have been
instructed to keep children from crossing until after the bus stops
and passes.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired the distance between the bus stop
and crosswalk, to which Officer Rodrigue responded approximately
120 feet.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the cars would have to look
around the bus to see people at the crosswalk and whether the
crosswalk would be before the bus stop in the other direction.
Officer Rodrigue responded the bus stops would be before the
crosswalks in both directions.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the issues that prompted the Police
Department to send a letter to AC Transit no longer exist and
whether the Police Department is satisfied with returning the bus
stop to the prior location.
Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there is a history of accidents
with children involved under the prior configuration.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-03-20,5,"Mayor Johnson stated that some money went to capital improvement
funding.
Councilmember deHaan stated capital improvements should be
fulfilled.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Golf Commission would be reviewing
the funding for Capital Improvement Projects noted that the
Recreation and Park Director will be the Interim Golf Manager.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired what accounts for the $200,000
month-to-month swing in expenditures.
The Finance Director responded September's expenditures include a
$100,000 increase because there was a third pay period in the
month; stated $13,000 was spent for painting the driving range
structure; July expenditures are low because less maintenance work
is done; utility costs fluctuate from the first three months to the
second three months.
Mayor Johnson stated that the Golf Commission should recommend and
set a reserve. the Golf Commission would need to give special
approval to draw from the reserve balance.
The Finance Director stated that money is made in July and August ;
money is drawn in September and October.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether there is a high variability in
utility use.
The Interim Golf Manager responded swings occur; stated water is
saved on rain days.
Vice Mayor Tam stated higher golf participation occurs in July and
August; irrigating in the winter months seems odd.
Councilmember deHaan stated Capital Improvement Projects take place
in the winter.
Mayor Johnson requested a list of Capital Improvement Projects
stated maintenance is critical and cannot be deferred.
The Finance Director stated some maintenance costs are routine and
are included in the operating costs.
Mayor Johnson stated that project schedules and goals need to be
developed.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-03-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-03,5,"shelter design considered next bus readers.
The City Engineer responded accommodating next bus readers would
not be a problem if electricity were added.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether solar power is a possibility.
The City Engineer responded she would look into the matter.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the shelter design provides weather
protection.
The City Engineer responded weather protection could be provided
stated sidewalk width and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
access would need to be considered.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Bayport bus shelters are the worst
and provide only two seats; the City's bus shelters provide three
seats; adequate seating should be provided; shelters should be
advertisement free.
The City Engineer stated advertisement was not included in the
standard because of previous discussions.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Alamedans for Responsible Transit
Shelters (ARTS) requested that a provision be added so that
continued bus shelter funding would be possible.
The City Engineer stated the current shelters are the shelters
provided by ARTS; steel or metal might not be available.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he likes the design criteria;
maintenance bleeds into installation and operation; the criteria
should state that the first choice is for the most durable shelters
with the least maintenance; durability and simplicity should be
ranked high.
The City Engineer stated durability and maintenance could be
included.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether a maintenance budget would
be included when the next bus shelters are installed.
The City Engineer responded the budget report would address the
need for an increase if the current maintenance budget is not
sufficient.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she was impressed with the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-04-17,5,"businesses; inquired what is the goal beyond zero inter-fund
advances.
The AP&T General Manager responded staff is reviewing ways to make
AP&T a viable business; voice is a major piece in making AP&T
viable; operational efficiencies are reviewed continually; there
may be some additional revenue increasing strategies for the
internet service.
Mayor Johnson inquired how many telecom and power staff reductions
have been made.
The AP&T General Manager responded eleven to thirteen staff
reductions occurred from the previous fiscal year to this fiscal
year; ten reductions are estimated for the proposed Fiscal Year
2008 budget budgeted positions peaked at 142 several years ago;
the budget is projecting 118 positions for next year.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the 118 positions would be for power
and telecom, to which the AP&T General Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the postproduction commitment would
end, to which the AP&T General Manager responded May for the
existing programs.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether people would be able to run the
community access programs but no editing would be done.
The AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there
may be some opportunities for interns to prepare specific programs
and projects and provide some very focused, specialized training to
people in the community.
Mayor Johnson stated editing is a luxury for the community but is
not affordable at this point editing may be affordable in the
future; inquired whether the power and telecom sides are being
reviewed for operational efficiencies, to which the AP&T General
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated electric staffing levels are being
brought down to pre-1998 levels; requested more information on the
matter.
The AP&T General Manager stated he would discuss the matter with
Councilmember deHaan at a later time.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
April 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-01,5,"at Pearl Street, Clay Street at Versailles Avenue, Clay Street at
Mound Street, Calhoun Street at College Avenue, Fillmore Street at
Mound Street, Bishop Street at Washington Street, Madison Street at
Mound Street, Adams Street at Bishop Street, and Fillmore Street at
Fountain Street;
(07-198A) Recommendation to authorize modification of Two-Way Stop
Controls at the Calhoun Street at Versailles Avenue, Mound Street
at Washington Street, Adams Street at Court Street, and San Jose
Avenue at Court Street intersections; and
(07-198B) - Recommendation to authorize installation of an All-way
Stop Control at the Calhoun Street at Mound Street intersection.
[Refer to motion under paragraph no. 07-197. ]
( * 07 -199 - Recommendation to authorize Alameda Power and Telecom
(AP&T) to sell obsolete and unnecessary personal property in excess
of $10,000. Accepted.
(*07-200) Resolution No. 14085, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Submit an Application for Measure B Paratransit Funding for Fiscal
Year 2007-2008. "" Adopted.
(*07-201) Ordinance No. 2965, ""Amending Alameda Municipal Code
Subsection 23-6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) of Section 23-6
(Harbor and Tidelands) of Chapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas
and Public Property) by Repealing Subsection 23-6.2 in Its Entirety
and Adding a New Subsection 23-6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) that
Incorporates Speed Limits for Vessels Propelled by Machinery in an
Estuary or Channel and Continues the Prohibition of Power Boats in
Lagoons. Finally passed.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(
07-202) Recommendation to accept the work of S. J. Amoroso
Construction Company, Inc. for the construction of the Alameda Free
Library - New Main Library Project, No. P.W. 01-03-01.
The Project Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Project Manager for the great work;
stated Alameda is proud to have built a government building ahead
of schedule and under budget in a difficult time.
Councilmember Gilmore added her congratulations ; stated the
building is very well utilized which is the best judge of successi
people are happy to use the Library.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 1, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-05-15,5,"Councilmember deHaan stated the Planning and Building Director's
position at the [Planning Board] meeting was that the decision is
policy and should be considered at the Council level, which is
contrary to the staff report.
The Planning and Building Director responded a bigger discussion of
Measure A, not in context of the Housing Element update or MTC
grant funded project, is a policy discussion in her opinion.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Council is going through stages
right now; the Alameda Point Master Developer was just selected;
the Master Developer will return with various ideas and direction
the MTC Station Area Plan was to set up the dialogue on
transportation; there was a very small sub-element on Measure A,
which became a prime element at the first meeting; the Housing
Element has been under discussion for ages and is an on-going
legitimate discussion; the Chinatown Agreement and lawsuits facing
the City are important and put certain limitations on the amount of
housing that can be built; the Collins property plans rejected by
the Planning Board and Council is in a lawsuit: these are the
things in which the Council needs to be involved; there is going to
be a different disposition of how Coast Guard housing will be
handled said matters are the concerns that require better
understanding of how to go forward; the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) will come forward; all said matters intertwine together the
Council took a position when the League of Women Voters requested
the matter [Measure A amendment ] be put on the ballot; density,
traffic and number of houses are important issues; in 2000, the
Sierra Club and ARC Ecology did a survey of around 300 homes to ask
if there was support to change Measure A; the response was not to
change Measure A; the other question was whether there would be
support to change Measure A for Alameda Point the study indicated
the matter would not pass if it were not brought through the
Council: a year later the Chamber of Commerce surveyed its
membership regarding changing Measure A; the membership decided not
to take any action because the resounding response was the
membership did not support changing Measure A; Measure A continues
to get good dialogue; there is not good understanding of Measure A;
the dialogue has to be out there to ensure people understand why
Measure A was put in place; Alameda Landing entitlements increased
housing and added retail that he supports additional retail;
however, saturation is being reached; the Tube congestion is
getting worse; full build out is not even close; reducing the
amount of housing at Alameda Point has been discussed; a rough
study indicated that it would take 3,100 homes to make Alameda
Point economically viable; there will be further study 12-15% of
people in Alameda use public transit; the Alameda Point PDC states
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 15, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-05-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-05,5,"Mayor Johnson inquired on what property is the lien placed.
The Finance Director responded the lien is placed on the Assessor': S
parcel number.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same names appear every
year.
The Finance Director responded a few reappear stated the majority
are new.
Mayor Johnson opening the public portion of the hearing.
Len Grzanka, Alameda, stated the City paid Municipal Auditing
Services $13,000 in the month of Mayi outstanding liens are $7,145;
questioned what is the cost benefit.
The Finance Director stated Municipal Auditing Services performs
two types of audits; one audit reviews documentation to ensure the
correct fee is paid and the other reviews businesses that are not
paying a business license fee; the fee is 50% of the amount
collected; the City received $26,000 in revenue for the $13,000
fee; $262,000 additional revenue was received in the current fiscal
year; $132,000 was paid in fees through May.
Councilmember deHaan stated that previous discussions addressed not
renewing the Contract; inquired whether a decision has been made.
The Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated a verbal
notice has been given to the Contractor advising that the Contract
will not be renewed past June of this year.
Rob Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), stated PSBA
works hand and hand with the Finance Department to ensure that all
members have paid business license and Business Improvement Area
(BIA) fees; liens are only against business owners who own the
property; PSBA takes business owners who rent to Small Claims Court
if someone refuses to pay the BIA fee; PSBA has collected every
time.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
ouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Municipal Auditing Services
has been used for four years.
The Finance Director responded the service started in January 2005 ;
stated the process has been going smoothly; the City works closely
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 5, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-06-19,5,"ago.
The Police Chief responded some upgrades occurred; stated the basic
backbone system dates back to late 1992.
Mayor Johnson stated hopefully interoperability will allow the
entire County to communicate.
The Interim Fire Chief stated the Fire Department Dispatch Center
is at the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory; parts are harder to get to
keep the system alive and well.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the East Bay Regional
Communicatior System hinges on the rest of California
municipalities coming together further inquired whether systems
are in place in other regions.
The Police Chief stated many Northern California agencies are in
the same position of having systems at the end of the cycles and
changes are needed; hopefully all nine Bay Area counties will
develop a system to communicate with each other.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Alameda's system would be
able to be married with the rest of the upcoming systems.
The Police Chief responded the system would be an open architecture
system that would allow others to mesh as the system evolves.
The Interim Fire Chief stated the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) requires setting aside certain talk groups with an 800 trunk
system; he participated in setting up a similar system in Orange
County.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired how long it took for all cities to
participate in a Joint Powers Authority in Orange County.
The Interim Fire Chief responded initially, participation was for
the Fire Service; stated the process took five or six years to
become operational; expansion took seven or eight years for all
City services.
The City Manager stated the effort was huge; a lot of decisions
need to be made along the way.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other cities have radio systems that
would work with the regional system.
The Interim Fire Chief responded Dallas and Florida have 800 trunk
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
June 19, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-06-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-03,5,"Controls at the following intersections Fountain Street at Van
Buren Street, and Fountain Street at Jackson Street. Accepted.
(*07-319) Resolution No. 14129, ""Authorizing Open Market Purchase
Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Roof
Structure for Maintenance Service Center Transfer Pad and
Dumpsters, No. P.W. 04-07-14 and Authorizing the City Manager to
Enter into Such an Agreement. Adopted.
(*07-320) Resolution No. 14130, ""Authorizing the City Manager to
Execute the Grant Contract Between the State of California
Department of Boating and Waterways and the City of Alameda for the
Purchase of Marine Patrol Equipment. "" Adopted.
(
(07-321) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Repealing Sections 5-30 (Filming Activities) in its
Entirety, and Replacing It with a Successor Section to Article II
(Permits) of Chapter V (Licenses and Permits) Making Changes to the
Procedures, Regulations and Related Fee Provisions for Filming
Activities within the City of Alameda. Continued to August 7, 2007.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-322) Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14131,
""Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment,
and Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Light
District 84-2, All Zones. Adopted; and
(07-322A) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution
Approving Engineer's Report, Confirming Diagram and Assessment, and
Ordering Levy of Assessments, Island City Landscaping and Lighting
District 84-2, Zones 2 and 3. Not adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated Zones 2 and 3 are on Webster Street; inquired
whether another budget would be prepared if the fee increase is
adopted.
The Public Works Coordinator responded the budget has been
prepared; stated the second resolution [for Zone 2 and 3] would
modify the first resolution to reflect the increase.
Mayor Johnson stated the issue is important to Webster Street.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
There being no speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public portion of
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
July 3, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-03.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-07-17,5,"The Planning Services Manager responded the General Plan
Amendment addresses the policy in E-T 5; stated the policy
requires that building heights be maintained between one and
four stories; the Planning Board added the language : ""consider
taller buildings if at least 30% of the Encinal Terminals site
is maintained for publicly accessible open space and/or on-site
water features.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether any buildings [in Alameda]
are taller than four stories.
The Planning Services Manager responded the Marina Village
Apartments.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the Northern Waterfront Committee
was against having one large structure on the site; 30% or more
might be open space because of the site's configuration and
setbacks.
The Planning Services Manager stated the current policy pushes
the plan in the direction of having open space and consolidating
the building program into a few buildings or one building with a
single footprint; the question is whether the community is
interested in more open space or having lower heights, which
would result in a site plan with development spread over the
site.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.
Proponents ( In favor of the staff recommendations : Former
Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Northside Association [submitted
document ] ; Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Michael Krueger,
Alameda; Don Peterson, Alameda; Nick Cabral, Alameda.
Neutral Eric Scheuermann, Alameda; Richard W. Rutter, Alameda;
Stuart Rickard, Northern Waterfront Action Committee.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson stated the Planning Board's additional language is
more specific than needed in a General Plan; suggested removing
the Planning Board language ; stated the Encinal Terminals site
reference has very specific language for a General Plan;
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
July 17, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-07-17.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-07,5,"Alameda Avenue, and 1224 Oak Street with Thompson Properties
(Lessor) for a City Parking Lot. Introduced.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether additional parking space
access is being considered.
The Development Services Director responded the parking study would
make a lot of different recommendations stated parking is an issue
of quantity and more importantly, location.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether monthly parking would be
available, to which the Development Services Director responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Park Street Business
Association (PSBA) would perform the coordination.
The Development Services Director responded that PSBA would
coordinate and manage the parking lot.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether twelve parking spaces would be
added, to which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan inquired what would be the fee per space, to
which the Development Services Director responded $80.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether $80 would cover costs, to
which the Development Services Director responded in the
affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether tandem parking was
considered.
The Public Works Coordinator responded in the negative; stated
tandem parking would not work in the lot.
Councilmember Matarrese stated tandem parking should be considered
to increase the number of spaces.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the parking lot surface is
adequate.
The Public Works Coordinator responded not at this moment.
Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated twelve people have been identified to
sign a one-year contract with PSBA for a designated parking space
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
August 7, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-07.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-08-21,5,"Councilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes the City would be
victorious at the appellate level; inquired whether the California
Supreme Court has a statutory timeframe to decide whether a cert
would be granted or denied.
The City Attorney responded in the negative; stated usually a
decision is received within a month to sixty days.
Councilmember Gilmore stated litigation may not be concluded for
two and a half to three years.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council should not act on the matter
now; he does not want to jeopardize any chance to get the property.
Councilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be tabled until there
is a clearer picture of what is going on in the Courts.
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that she appreciates staff
bringing the matter to Council's attention; staff worked on the
matter at Council's direction; information will be helpful when the
City moves forward on the matter; the entire community needs to be
included in planning what is needed.
On the call for question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(07 -402 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Adding Section 2-19 (Youth Advisory Commission) to Article
II (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter II (Administration) ,
Establishing a Youth Advisory Commission and Prescribing Membership
and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced.
The Recreation and Park Director gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor Tam stated that the administration, operation and
staffing would be absorbed in the Recreation and Park Department
budget i inquired how much time would be devoted to support the
Commission.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the start up time would
be more significant; stated the initial phase could require ten to
fifteen hours per week; the hours would decrease to approximately
five hours per week once everything is up and running.
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
August 21, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-08-21.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-04,5,"is October 20 at Alameda Point.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(07-425) Report on the process for Council-Initiated City Charter
Amendments ; and consideration of creating a City Council Sub-
committee or Ad-Hoc Committee to Review the Charter for Suggested
Amendment of City Charter Provisions.
The City Attorney provided a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson stated Charter amendments need to be placed on the
ballot in a certain amount of time before the election; inquired
how much time is needed.
The City Attorney responded legislation would need to be adopted if
Charter amendments are Council initiated; stated the legislation
would need to be adopted 88 days before the intended election.
The City Clerk stated next year's elections are February 5, June 3,
and November 4; the deadlines for adopting a resolution to place
the matter on the ballot are November 9 for the February 5
election, March 7 for the June 3 election, and August 8 for the
November 4 election.
Mayor Johnson stated that Council-initiated Charter amendments have
not been done while she has served.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the thrust of the Charter review
is to deal with portions of the Charter that are no longer
applicable and to clean up some gender specific language; a list of
more substantive issues would be brought back to the entire Council
for discussion.
Mayor Johnson stated Measure A would not be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the scope of review should not
be limited; the process would be to review the entire Charter with
regard to language clean up, State laws and other governing
processes that have changed a list would be developed and brought
back to Council; Council would pick and choose what to put on the
ballot; the process would take care of what is placed on the
ballot.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not want to turn the Charter
review clean up into a Measure A debate.
Councilmember deHaan concurred with Mayor Johnson; stated the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-11,5,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - September 11, 2007
September 11, 2007 Priority Setting Workshop
On September 11, 2007, the City Council and Executive Management Team met from 9:30
a.m. until 2 p.m. in the Library for a priority setting workshop. Jan Perkins and Nancy Hetrick
of Management Partners facilitated the workshop.
The workshop was the first of two sessions planned. The priority setting process began with
staff creating work plans to articulate the special projects of City departments. This process
is timely because of the start of the next two-year budget cycle in early 2008, and the
addition of new members to the Executive Management Team.
Priority Setting Process Purpose
The purpose of the entire priority setting process is to:
Provide Council direction on priorities for the work plan for the next 2-3 years.
Provide an opportunity to strengthen Council understanding of staff's current work plans
and resources available to carry them out.
Create mutual understanding and agreement between the Council and Executive
Management Team on a process of reporting progress on work plans.
Create mutual understanding and agreement between the Council and Executive
Management Team on a process of modifying priorities once adopted (adding/deleting
projects to meet changing needs) that includes adjusting existing priorities or adding
resources to ensure new projects can be completed and Council priorities met.
The focus of the workshop held on September 11, 2007, was the following:
Identification of factors affecting the City over the next several years
Confirmation or modification of draft citywide objectives
Understanding of current work plans for City departments
Initial understanding of Council priorities
A second Council/Executive Management Team workshop will be held in November (date to
be determined), in order to accomplish the following:
Understanding of the resources needed to successfully accomplish Council priorities.
Agreement by Council on priorities for attention for next 2 years
Agreement on process of reporting progress on priorities
Agreement on process of modifying the adopted priorities
Workshop Agenda
The agenda for the September 11, 2007, workshop contained the following items:
Environmental scan and SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats)
discussion
Discuss draft citywide objectives
Discuss current work plans
Identify Council priorities
Management Partners, Inc.
1",CityCouncil/2007-09-11.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-09-18,5,"to grow in California; generation is not keeping up with the pace;
the problem has exasperated in the Bay Area; congestion pricing
will be implemented next year; prices have the potential to go up
in areas where there is not sufficient generation.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether usage would be more than 1%
or 4% per year.
The AP&T General Manager responded the maximum usage is 10%; stated
the unit is called a reliability must run (RMR) unit. ; the
California Independent System Operator performs a study of
California and sub-regions from a reliability perspective every
year; the study is done in consultation with stakeholders all over
the State; certain units are designated RMR at the end of the
study.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he has no problem with moving
forward on the matter since there is an exchange of ownership; he
has concerns with continuing to run a gas turbine; he hopes that
gas turbines will not be used in Alameda in the future; the
obligation could go on forever with NCPA.
The AP&T General Manager stated that he would include tonight'
comments into the PUB's long-term planning efforts; the matter is a
reliability issue; everyone needs to work together to support the
grid; natural gas is much cleaner; Alameda is the best, or among
the top three, in the State with regard to overall carbon
footprint carbon footprint reduction efforts will continue.
Councilmember deHaan stated that Assembly Bill 32 mandates lowering
the footprint; he would not like to see more than 3% or 4% usage.
Councilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation
Mayor Johnson inquired what is the status of the congestion fees.
The AP&T General Manager responded congestion fees are in place
now; stated the matter will become more complicated starting April
1, 2008; one regulatory victory has allowed averaging some of the
pricing points across the Bay Area, but may not be permanent.
Mayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan made a good point
regarding plans for the future; other producers may be forced to
put in less green energy to fulfill the needs of the overall grid
if decisions are made not to use the turbines more than 3% or 4%;
arbitrary limits should not be set.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
September 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-09-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-02,5,"Vice Mayor Tam stated that the development of the management plan
for emergency response is very important she would like to
underscore that priority should be given to an Island such as
Alameda with regard to emergency accessi Alameda should not be left
stranded by having its boats used elsewhere in the event of a big
emergency.
Councilmember deHaan stated that dialogue was initiated with the
Water Transit Authority (WTA) at one time; concerns involved
whether the WTA had the wherewithal to move forward and take over a
system; the City did not want to Alameda's system to deteriorate in
any way; inquired whether the legislation could be signed as early
as October 14.
The Public Works Director responded that the legislation was sent
to the Governor on September 20; the Governor has thirty days to
act on the legislation by either signing or vetoing the bill; the
bill would be enacted if no action is taken.
Councilmember deHaan requested information on the difference
between Alameda's and Vallejo's concerns.
The Public Works Director stated Alameda is trying to ascertain the
value of its assets; approximately $1.1 million could have gone
into other types of services but said amount does not include the
$1 million that was funded through an assessment district for the
Harbor Bay Ferry; Vallejo's assets are approximately $112 million;
Vallejo is a true transit agency that combines buses with the
ferries Harbor Bay's farebox recovery ratio is 46% and the
Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service is over 50%; Vallejo's farebox
recovery is 65%.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Vallejo is non-supportive of
the legislation.
The Ferry Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated
Vallejo issued a letter requesting ferry riders to lobby the
Governor.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not know whether Vallejo has
simply a lot of unanswered questions or is in complete opposition
to an integrated Bay water transit system.
The Public Works Director stated that a lot of unanswered questions
should be addressed in the cleanup legislation.
Mayor Johnson stated that Vallejo is unclear about what will happen
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 2, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-10-16,5,"for the bonds; there is multi layer financing through tax credit
and soft money; qualified institutional buyers are lending the
funds for the bonds.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the documents clearly state that the
City's contribution is $4 million.
Mr. Stoecker responded the documents are not complete; stated
standard documentation states that the bonds are payable solely by
RCD; there is no State, County, or City obligation.
Mayor Johnson inquired who would be managing the construction.
Mr. Stoecker responded RCD; stated RCD is a very well respected
firm.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether RCD's projects have been on time and
on or under budget.
The Development Manager responded RCD was selected by the City in
2002 to develop the 52-unit and 10-unit Bayport project; stated
both projects were completed on time and on budget.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed project would be
design-build, to which the Development Manager responded in the
affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City needs to be clear that someone
else would have to find the money if there is a shortfall at the
end.
The Development Manager stated that RCD understands the City's
funding limits; all financing documents are separate.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would not fund operation,
to which the Development Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated it is important that the City has the ability
to make sure that anyone considered to operate the project has
adequate funding and management skills if there is a change in
management or operation.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the City's remedy would be
to give consent to a new construction entity and operator with
adequate financing if RCD did not have enough funds to pay the bond
obligation.
The Development Manager responded the decision is not solely the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
October 16, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-10-16.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-06,5,"Councilmember Gilmore suggested broadening the enabling language so
that there would be an opportunity to use the funds for other
things.
The Development Services Director stated that the business
community was told that they would have some input as to how the
incremental funds would be spent.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the language should be broadened
to allow input from the business community; the matter would not
have to be revisited again if there is a consensus to install more
bike racks or shelters on Park Street.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the money could be used
for something else.
The City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated an ordinance
covers the parking meter fund uses and has almost every imaginable
use related to parking; Council has the legal ability to amend the
ordinance.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the ordinance is coming to
Council now and then going back to the Transportation Commission
and Economic Development Commission.
The Development Services Director responded the entire parking
study would go back to the Transportation Commission; stated the
item was extracted out because it can be done without the analysis
of other parking district issues which analyze capacity, etc.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired why the issue is coming to Council
now if the study has not been finalized.
The Development Services Director responded the parking study is
falling behind; stated adjusting all of the meter heads will take
many weeks; the meters need to be ready when the garage opens.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Transportation
Commission or Economic Development Commission have a recommendation
at this time.
The Development Services Director responded in the negative; stated
that she is not sure whether the Transportation Commission has
jurisdiction over setting rates.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the increase would provide enough
incentive to impact repeat offenders.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 6, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-13,5,"City of Alameda
Summary of Priority Setting Workshop - November 13, 2007
Workshop Ground Rules
The ground rules for the September 11th workshop, set by the Council and staff, were used
for the November 13th workshop. The ground rules were:
Keep a sense of humor
Be direct and diplomatic
One person speak at a time
Everyone participate - have an open dialogue
Listen
Respect the work that went into this
Recap of September 11 workshop:
Discussed Alameda's recent successes
Presented and discussed an Environmental Scan prepared by staff
Conducted Strengths, Weaknesses/Limitations Opportunities, Threats brainstorm
Reviewed and modified citywide policy objectives
Reviewed departmental work plans (programs/projects)
Council members identified highest and high priorities
Between September 12 and November 13
Management Partners prepared report summarizing work accomplished at the 9/11
workshop, including next steps
Staff discussed progress reporting format to ensure Council is informed
Management Partners provided information about how cities address new initiatives, and
staff brainstormed how such a process might work in Alameda
Management Partners prepared agenda for 11/13 workshop
Revised City Purpose Statement
The Council reviewed the proposed purpose statement and made the following revision:
The City of Alameda focuses its resources on providing services that enhance
the quality of life for its residents and promote the prosperity of its business
community.
Management Partners, Inc.
2",CityCouncil/2007-11-13.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-11-20,5,"collections.
Ms. Dileo responded items were placed on casters long ago; stated
collections are on racks. plenty of effort has been put into
maintenance.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Museum industry has standards
for preserving collections.
Ms. Dileo responded she that is not an expert; stated efforts are
being made with available resources.
Mayor Johnson stated on-going efforts need to be made to expand
displays.
Ms. Dileo stated there would be two new displays after the first of
the year.
Councilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Dileo for presenting the Business
Plan; stated a lot of work went into the Plan; she understands that
the forward looking aspect is limited because there will be three
new Board Members; she would like future reports to address
expanding fundraising, the marketing plan, and membership plan; she
would like to see more detailed steps on how expansion will be
accomplished and how success will be measured; concrete steps need
to be established for implementing ideas Council was clear in
stating that greater fundraising efforts and results are expected;
educational services may be beneficial to the public but do not
bring in money; there needs to be a balance between educational
goals and fund raising goals; rent will increase; she would like to
see the Museum make an effort to contribute to the delta.
Councilmember Matarrese thanked Ms. Dileo for the information;
stated it is important for people to know the cost of running a
Museum; the City has a role by allocating $50,000 to support the
Museum; a budgetary fundraising goal needs to be assigned Council
can measure the progress against the goal; the Board should
consider assigning a target for a 2008 membership drive; future
updates should provide said information; tonight's discussion helps
put public spotlight on the Museum so that people are aware that
the Museum is here, what the costs are, and that volunteers work
very hard to keep the Museum going; he would like to see the City
and Museum move together as partners.
Ms. Coler-Dark stated that membership has increased from 350 to
over 450 over the last year.
Mayor Johnson stated that it is important to establish 2008
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
November 20, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-11-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-04,5,"going to the City Manager and requesting that matters be placed on
the agenda the workshop when the matter was discussed did not have
public input; when she was the City's representative to League of
California Cities (LCC) Councilmembers from the few cities with
said provision indicated it worked out to be a gag order; if the
majority of Council prevents a Councilmember from putting something
on the agenda, it would disenfranchise the people who elected that
person; furthermore, people interested in the issue would have to
come to two Council meetings one to discuss placing the matter on
the agenda and one to address the matter on the agenda.
Vice Mayor Tam stated as the LCC representative, she learned from
other cities, such as Palo Alto and Fremont, that the process
helped increase public awareness and transparency about why certain
things get on the agenda and others do not; having the formalized
process helps provide fuller Council discussion of issue and helps
guide and direct priorities.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Councilmembers would have to
complete a referral form if interested in a topic raised by a
member of the public at a Council meeting; questioned what the
proposal does to the Council's on the fly consensual process.
The City Manager responded the process allows staff to provide cost
information and whether the item would change priorities or work
plans.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the process does not have anything
to do with cost and addresses whether or not a matter would be
placed on an agenda; Councilmember Gilmore's point was if a speaker
raises an issue and there is Council consensus, the matter would be
placed on an agenda at a future time; it [the proposal] puts in
writing what is now handled under Council Communications the
Council makes the formalized vote on placing the matter on the
agenda.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she sees two distinct processes
the [referral form would be used if a Councilmember has an idea to
be researched; however, asking a member of the public to go through
the same hoops that Councilmembers go through is not fair; former
Councilmember Kerr's point is well taken; it takes a lot to get
people to come to City Hall or call, whereas, Councilmembers are
here and have contact with staff.
Mayor Johnson stated Council can make it clear that Council is
intending to do so; if a speaker conveys a great idea and the
majority of Council requests follow up, the matter could be brought
back.
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
December 4, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2007-12-18,5,"granted for up to a one-year period and that an exemption extension
may be granted if undue hardship continues to exist; said language
is open for interpretation in that an exemption may be granted for
up to a one-year period from the date the ordinance becomes
effective or when a vendor comes into Alameda next August and
requests a year.
The Public Works Director responded exemptions would be on a case-
by-case basis.
Councilmember Matarrese proposed that exemptions be granted for
existing businesses from a one-year period from the effectiveness
of the ordinance; otherwise, someone could get an unfair advantage
in perpetuity; the extension should have a cap.
Mayor Johnson stated that she has a hard time imagining the need
for a one-time exemption; Councilmember Quan's office received
concerns regarding restaurants selling hot soup; she does not see
why a business could not comply within three or six months of
implementation; a year is too long.
The Public Works Director stated the exemption would be for an
undue hardship.
Mayor Johnson stated that she cannot imagine what an undue hardship
would be when all businesses are very similar.
The Public Works Director stated there may be a business that needs
a unique packaging; containers may not be available to meet the
need; everyone would need to met the ordinance by July 1, unless
there is an undue hardship.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think some businesses should
have to comply while others do not.
Councilmember Matarrese suggested putting a one-year timeframe from
the date of implementation; stated new businesses would not get an
exemption.
Councilmember deHaan stated that he thinks that one year would be
more than adequate. McDonalds still serves coffee in styrofoam cups
that have a ""Recycle #6"" logo; inquired whether said cups can be
recycled.
The Public Works Director responded the cups could not be recycled
if soiled; stated some cities are trying to recycle polystyrene;
the cost is over $3,000 per ton; glass is less than $100 per ton;
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
December 18, 2007",CityCouncil/2007-12-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-02,5,"Mr. Getherall responded there is every type of scenario.
Mr. Singer stated some golf facilities are self operated by a
municipality with unionized labor and earn more in green fee
revenue than is needed to spend on facility maintenance; all
municipalities are facing the same wage and benefit increases
expenses are being cut and positions are being reduced to make ends
meet.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the report itemizes a series of improvements
in year one and two that add up to approximately $10 million; noted
that Mr. Singer mentioned that golfers only care about the
condition of the greens; the banquet facility is listed as the last
priority; inquired which improvements are necessary.
Mr. Singer responded improvements were categorized according to
those which would lead to increased revenue; stated better drainage
and irrigation are high priority issues; golfers care about the
greens, but fairways, tees, and sand traps are important also.
Mr. Getherall stated non-resident golfers are important; resident
golfers will play regardless [of conditions) ; people travel to play
golf; a Master Plan is needed.
Councilmember deHaan stated the report brought to light a lot of
what was already known; inquired whether an analysis has ever been
made on a successful, local golf course.
Mr. Singer stated the NGF worked with the cities of Concord,
Livermore, and San Francisco.
Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's cost per round is lower or in
the middle compared to other listed golf courses inquired whether
other courses will be in trouble, to which Mr. Getherall responded
many golf courses are in trouble.
Councilmember deHaan stated there has been a steady decline after
1996.
Mr. Singer stated municipalities find it difficult to self operate
a golf facility with the current wage situation.
Councilmember deHaan stated a leasing option is not a cure all.
Mr. Singer stated leasing is not a cure all but is the best
opportunity in terms of revenue to the City.
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
January 2, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-02.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-01-15,5,"forward with a design.
Mayor Johnson stated that she cannot imagine that rebuilding a
porch, changing windows, removing and restoring the brickwork, and
replacing the fireplace would cost $537,000.
The Planning Services Manager stated that the bid was a
comprehensive cost and included exterior and interior restoration.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether adding another 2,000 square feet
would make the home livable to current standards.
The Planning Services Manager responded that the Applicant would
remodel and arrange interior floor space to address current needs.
Mayor Johnson stated that she would like further information on the
$537,000 bid; a structure on Minturn Street was rebuilt after a
fire and looks beautiful there seems to be a significant
difference between what would be approved and what the owners would
like to build; she does not want to see another monster house in an
area where there are small homes; questioned why the Applicant
would want to demolish the structure if she is not willing to
rebuild something acceptable.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that one issue is the determination
by the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) that the house should not be
demolished; the second issue is what the house would be replaced
with if demolished; old does not mean historical; he does not want
to have a vacant lot because what can be built there cannot be
decided.
Councilmember deHaan stated the existing structure could be livable
with a few modifications; the situation has three different
scenarios.
The Planning Services Manager stated the HAB is faced with
determining whether or not the structure is one that should be
demolished because it lacks historical integrity and does not have
any relationship to past persons or events; Council can make the
decision to grant the appeal if Council cannot find that the
structure can return a financial value; the structure needs to tie
into the neighborhood.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the City
Attorney interpret whether or not Council makes decisions based on
guaranteeing someone a financial return; he is not sure whether
said criteria is applied when looking at historic significance.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
January 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-05,5,"discussions can be deferred to a later date regarding the formation
of a Commission; he would like to have the Task Force reconvene at
special points; one job could be to link up Task Force priorities
to the City's project list. the Task Force could review the budget
and measure against priorities an educational component was
discussed when the Task Force was created; the job is half way
done; people need to know about the priorities and how progress
will be measured; some lower tier priorities could be accomplished,
such as getting biodiesel into the diesel fleet; he is in support
of the staff recommendation with the exception of dissolving the
Task Force; the Task Force should review the prioritization list
and budget before adoption and work on publicizing the outcome of
the effort; the future of the Task Force should be revisited at the
end of the summer.
Vice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Matarrese; inquired
whether on-going participation would be in violation of the Brown
Act.
The City Attorney responded if the Task Force was considered to be
a standing committee with on-going duties for a greater length of
time, it would be considered a legislative body under the Brown Act
and would have to meet in a public setting; Council could
reconstitute the group in some other format.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the Brown Act would prevail
if a working task force under the Planning Board or PUB were
established.
The City Attorney responded a committee, commission or sub-group
with a specific task or purpose of somewhat limited duration would
not be considered to be a Brown Act committee.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether not noticing the meetings
was being considered.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the question is a process question she
supports having a Citizen Advisory group help with priority
settings and help examine how the recommendations fit in the
budget inquired whether there is an obligation as part of the
motion to re-establish some type of Citizen Advisory group that is
different than the Climate Protection Task Force originally formed
in 2006.
The Supervising Planner stated a public forum was held regarding
the Local Action Plan; the last recommendation is to come back and
determine whether or not an on-going commission should be
established.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council Meeting
5
February 5, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-05.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-02-19,5,"The Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated there are big
calls 24-7; the vehicle is not used just to ride around; the
Incident Commander uses the vehicle to go to Fire Stations to meet
with Captains.
In response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry regarding cargo
capacity, Vice Mayor Tam stated the cargo capacity of the Tahoe is
109 cubic feet, while the Highlander is 94 cubic feet; the towing
capacity differs greatly; inquired whether capacity is needed for
communication equipment or engine size.
The Fire Chief responded the vehicle is not needed for towing;
cargo capacity is critical.
Councilmember deHaan stated purchasing from Toyota would also be
buying local; since the Toyota is built in the States, there is no
concern over government purchase of a foreign product; there is
almost the same capacity with greater fuel efficiency; inquired
whether the purchase could be deferred because these are trying
times for the budget.
The Fire Chief responded funding is from the vehicle replacement
fund; deferring the purchase compounds the problem because other
vehicles are due for replacement next year.
Councilmember deHaan stated the funding is from the General Fund.
The City Manager stated equipment replacement funding ultimately
comes from the General Fund; the vehicle was identified in the
budget process as one that would be replaced; purchasing a Suburban
was an option; staff came up with the hybrid recommendation, rather
than replacing the vehicle with a Suburban.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current equipment could be
reused on the new vehicle.
The Fire Chief responded some of the equipment will be transitioned
over, such as the computer most of the equipment has to be built
for the vehicle, such as the light bars; noted the current back up
vehicle is a cargo van that the City got from the Navy; both
vehicles are at their life's end.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there would not be a discussion if
the vehicle were a patrol car, ambulance or fire truck that goes
and delivers direct service.
The Fire Chief stated the vehicle does so; the Incident Commander
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
February 19, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-02-19.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-04,5,"Vice Mayor Tam stated that Councilmember Gilmore, Senior Assistant
City Attorney, and Deputy City Clerk have been meeting following
the December 5, 2007 workshop; the subcommittee consolidated the
proposed changes into three different categories: nonsubstantiv
revisions; substantive revisions; and revisions that Council and
the City Manager suggested after the workshop.
Councilmember Gilmore outlined the proposed nonsubstantive
revisions.
Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the deadline to pass a
resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam responded Council needs to pass a resolution no
later than August 7, 2008, to qualify for the November consolidated
election; stated the subcommittee recommends placing the matter on
the July 15, 2008 City Council agenda.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee wanted to ensure that
there was enough time to provide the public with information.
Vice Mayor Tam outlined the proposed substantive revisions.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the proposed language for Article
IV, Auditor, and Article V, Treasurer, was drafted in consultation
with the current incumbents.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Article 28-5 has an extra provision
for removal of a Historical Advisory Board Member, to which
Councilmember Gilmore responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whom the Charter designates as officers;
stated the term ""officer"" seems to be broader than just people
elected or appointed by Council.
The Senior Assistant City Attorney responded Section 2-12 adds
assistants and deputies.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the revision would not change who is
or is not an officer, to which the Senior Assistant City Attorney
responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese questioned whether there is a way to
override the formal bidding requirement while still requiring
Council approval ; no bid would be required to get work started,
then a Council meeting could be called to approve the expenditure.
The Public Works Director stated that 2005 had some very bad storms
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 4, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-04.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-03-18,5,"Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated the City did not
connect the dots between crime at the Harbor Island Apartments and
the condition of the units and treatment of tenants requested an
update in a month regarding Section 8 voucher management and public
safety issues.
Vice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding
reporting back to Council.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(08-119) Resolution No. 14187, ""Approving Amendment to the
Memorandum of Understanding Between the International Brotherhood
of Electrical Workers and the City of Alameda for the Period Ending
December 31, 2008, to Establish Rubber Glove Educational Incentive
Pay. "" Adopted.
The Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.
Councilmember deHaan stated that approving the incentive pay is the
right thing to do; he wants the public to understand the reasoning
for the incentive pay.
The Human Resources Director stated the City has had a hard time
attracting Journey Lineworkers.
Councilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(08-120 ) Resolution No. 14188, ""Authorizing the Execution by the
General Manager of Alameda Power & Telecom of the First Amendment
to the Power Purchase Agreement with Ameresco Keller Canyon, LLC
for Price Increase of Delivered Power from Landfill Gas
Generation. Adopted.
The AP&T General Manager gave a brief presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested that the General Manager provide an
explanation of landfill gas generation.
The AP&T General Manager stated that landfill gas generation is a
method in which gas that is generated from decomposing waste in a
landfill is captured through a network of pipes and is gathered and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
March 18, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-03-18.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-01,5,"consensus on the new objective.
The Council responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson requested that the policy objective that reads : ""Take
measures to improve and promote the community's economic health"" be
revised to include the City government's short-term and long-term
economic health.
Ms. Perkins inquired whether there is a consensus to add the
language proposed by the Mayor, to which the Council responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to clarify that all
the projects are on-going before assigning priorities the Council
should be notified if something has to stop; the priorities are
dynamic and could change next week or next month; further stated
the budget could cause changes; inquired whether establishing the
priorities is a starting point.
The City Manager responded the process is dynamic; many work
programs span a number of years; reviewing the list and receiving
feedback will finalize the initial list.
Councilmember deHaan noted some departments do not have many tasks
or tasks that require a large amount of labor public safety only
has emergency preparedness; that he does not want functional
requirements displaced.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the limit should be ten priorities if
there are departments that are not overburdened with projects.
Ms. Perkins stated the effort is to distinguish between the work
program and the Council's top priorities so that the Council's
priorities are understood when internal adjustment of assignments
are necessary.
Mayor Johnson inquired why the priorities are not being reviewed by
department.
The City Manager responded the mechanism is to establish the
Citywide priorities.
Vice Mayor Tam inquired whether the Council would be informed if
resources for a project were reallocated; and whether a project
would be delayed, but not dropped, in said instance.
The City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Council
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
April 1, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-01.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-04-15,5,"go back into the CDBG funding, to which the Development Services
Director responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember deHaan stated the Action Plan has three new programs ;
the Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) self-employment initiative
funding is $165,000 and covers a third of the overall funding;
inquired whether past services have continued support.
The Community Development Program Manager responded funding depends
on circumstances; stated capital projects have one-time funding
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the APC would be an ongoing
program.
The Community Development Program Manager responded APC funding is
flexible; stated Housing and Urban Development (HUD) offers a
special designation which allows for greater flexibility.
Councilmember deHaan stated APC funding is $125,000; inquired
whether other programs would not be able to continue.
The Community Development Program Manager responded the intention
is to have the APC program be a start-up; stated milestones would
need to be reached.
Councilmember deHaan inquired whether programs that are not
recommended for funding could be revisited.
The Community Development Program Manager responded that public
service programs would not be revisited at this time; stated any
additional funding would go to direct services that are already
funded.
Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.
Proponents (In favor of staff recommendation) : Cynthia Wasko,
Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB) ; Michael John Torrey,
Alameda; Cherri Allison, Family Violence Law Center Liz Varela,
Building Futures with Women and Children; Sue Sigler, Alameda Point
Collaborative; Franklin Hysten, Alternatives in Action; Sue
Retherford, Bananas; Jim Franz, Red Cross; and Paul Russell,
Alameda Food Bank.
There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public
portion of the hearing.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there is a criteria for allocating
funds, to which Ms. Wasko responded in the affirmative.
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
April 15, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-04-15.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-06,5,"2008 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.""
Adopted.
(*08-190) - Resolution No. 14203, ""Preliminarily Approve Annual
Report Declaring Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of
Assessments and providing for Notice of Public Hearing on July 1, ,
2008 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . ""
Adopted.
(*08-191) Resolution No. 14204, ""Directing Staff to Take Necessary
Steps to Proceed with the Dissolution of the Non-Profit
Corporation, Alameda Senior Citizens, Inc. Adopted.
( *08-192) Resolution No. 14205, ""Approving Continued Participation
in the Alameda County HOME Consortium and Authorizing the City
Manager to Execute the HOME Consortium Cooperative Agreement with
Alameda County. "" Adopted.
(08-193) Resolution No. 14206, ""Supporting Measure H, the Alameda
Unified School District Temporary Emergency Parcel Tax. Adopted.
David Forbes, Alameda Unified School District Board of Education,
expressed appreciation to the Police Department in providing
services to the School District; stated the State budget is in
worse condition than on January 10; a parcel tax is the only way
the School District can raise revenue; the recommended parcel tax
equates to $10 per month [per parcel ] for four years; requested
Council support.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.
Vice Mayor Tam stated the City's quality of life is tied to the
quality of schools; it is incumbent upon the community to support
Measure H; waiting for the State to solve the budget will cause
students to suffer.
Vice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated Assemblymember
Swanson held a hearing on Saturday at Encinal High School; the
State budget is in bad shape; fixing the budget will take a long
time.
Councilmember deHaan noted that the Recreation and Park Department
also supports the School District.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following
voice vote - 5.
Regular Meeting
5
Alameda City Council
May 6, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-20,5,"Mr. McCammon responded in the affirmative; stated additional 800
MHz is not available; the body that allocates spectrum is
allocating 700 MHz to regional systems only.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda could operate on the 700 MHz
system, to which Mr. McCammon responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the spectrums have capacity issues.
Mr. McCammon responded potentially; stated the system has been
designed to take capacity issues into account; Alameda County has
21 channels; another 20 channels have been allocated to Contra
Costa County; another 100 channels would become available in the
700 MHz spectrum; the system allows for priority accessi public
safety has the highest priority; San Diego County has a 800 MHz
system; the 2003 fires had capacity issues; the system has been
fixed and worked well during fires.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether San Diego County has a similar
number of radios on the system.
Mr. McCammon responded in the affirmative; stated San Diego County
has approximately 23,000 users on the system.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether San Diego County has as many
jurisdictions as Alameda County, to which Mr. McCammon responded in
the affirmative.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the Power Point presentation
be posted to the website and that Council receive hard copies of
future Power Point presentations in the Council packet.
The City Manager stated presentations by outside sources do not
belong to the City.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that staff has control over the
agenda; people should provide presentation material ahead of time
so that the material is in the packet and gets posted to the
website.
The City Manager stated that staff can request said material.
Councilmember deHaan stated Power Point presentations are usually a
summary; a full report would be more than adequate; Power Point
presentations that do not have a report would be good to have ahead
of time.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is no reason to not have Power
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 20, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-20.pdf
CityCouncil,2008-05-27,5,"Mayor Johnson stated funds that are not discretionary should be
removed from the General Fund or shown as discretionary and non-
discretionary.
The City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson requested staff to provide information on how much
the refinancing would save per year and how much it would cost the
City; stated the net amount should be provided.
Councilmember deHaan stated some bonds have been previously
refinanced he would like to know when the bonds were refinanced
and the cost.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the issue strikes him as a guiding
principle; that he does not mind refinancing debt for hard assets;
that he objects to borrowing money for operations; he would like
Council to consider said policy.
Councilmember deHaan stated staffing increased proportionally
through all departments in 1997 when the City took over the former
Naval Air Station; he would like the numbers reviewed more in
depth.
Mayor Johnson stated a formal request should be made to the Navy to
request payment for police and fire service at the Base; the City
cannot afford to pay for the service.
Following Vice Mayor Tam's questions regarding redevelopment funds,
the City Manager stated information would be provided.
Vice Mayor Tam requested the information be posted on the City's
website.
The City Manager continued the presentation.
Councilmember deHaan raised questions about the Planning and
Building Department moving into the Carnegie Building.
Following discussion of uses of permit fees, the City Manager
stated additional information would be provided.
Mayor Johnson requested when changes for window permits are made,
the matter should be placed on a Council agenda.
Councilmember deHaan requested more detailed information on the
amount of General Fund reserves available and loaned out.
Special Meeting
Alameda City Council
5
May 27, 2008",CityCouncil/2008-05-27.pdf