{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 18, 2006- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:46 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Mayor Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nVice Mayor Gilmore - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-198) Proclamation declaring April 22, 2006 as Earth Day\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Chuck Bangert,\nVice President of the Public Utilities Board.\nMr. Bangert thanked the Council for the opportunity to sponsor\nEarth Day 2006; stated that Alameda ranks number one in resource\nadequacy as well as environmental friendliness; invited the Council\nto visit the Alameda Power & Telecom booth on Saturday from 11:00\na.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Upper Washington Park; presented the Council\nwith a bag of recycled items.\n(06-199) Proclamation declaring the month of April as Fair Housing\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Mona Breed\nwith Sentinel Fair Housing.\nMs. Breed thanked the Council for the Proclamation and provided the\nCouncil with a fair housing education booklet; stated the booklet\nwill be translated to Spanish and Chinese for non-English speaking\nproperty owners.\n(06-200)\nProclamation declaring April 25, 2006 as Equal Pay Day in\nthe City of Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the Proclamation to Jen Crook,\nChair of Equal Pay Day activities.\nMs. Crook stated the Business and Professional Women of Alameda\nprovide awareness to young girls; thanked the Council for the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 2, "text": "Proclamation provided the Council with flyers that were\ndistributed to Girl Scout troops.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar. .\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n( *06-201) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on April 4, 2006, and the Special City Council Meeting held on\nApril 5, 2006. Approved.\n( 06-202 - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,827,937.04.\n( *06-203) Recommendation to approve the Amended and Restated\nHousing Assistance Agreement, Attachment A to the City Manager\nEmployment Agreement, and authorize the execution of related\ndocuments. Accepted.\n(*06-204) Recommendation to adopt plans and specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for repair and resurfacing of certain\nstreets, Phase 26, No. P.W. 03-06-08. Accepted.\n(*06-205) Resolution No. 13943, \"Amending the Alameda City\nEmployees Association (ACEA) Salary Schedule by Establishing the\nSalary Range for the Classification of Permit Technician III.\"\nAdopted; and\n06-205A) - Resolution No. 13944, \"Amending the Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule by\nEstablishing the Salary Range for the Classification of Police\nRecords and Communications Manager. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-206) ) Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to adopt\nFiscal Year 2006-2007 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)\nAction Plan and authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute\nrelated documents, agreements, and modifications.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager provided a brief\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated reallocated funds are approximately\n10% of the total budget; inquired whether a 10% carryover is\nanticipated for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\nhopefully not; stated money would be spent on the Woodstock to\nWebster Street Project in the upcoming fiscal year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a 10% decrease\nin federal funding from the previous allocation, to which the\nDevelopment Services Division Manager responded the decrease was\napproximately 9.5%.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nKaren Hollinger-Jackson, Social Services Human Relations Board\n(SSHRB) Member, stated the SSHRB unanimously agrees with the staff\nrecommendation.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB for input on funding issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether a one-year funding cycle\noccurred in the past.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded two-year\nfunding cycles were done in the past; a one-year funding cycle was\nused most currently; the recommendation is to return to the two-\nyear funding cycle.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether funding was in jeopardy.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded funding\nis always in jeopardy; CDBG funding cuts are recommended [at the\nfederal level] every year; the funding has strong bi-partisan -\nsupport; 10% to 30% cuts are anticipated next year.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether funding adjustments have been\nmade.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nsecond year funding cycle is contingent upon the allocation; the\nCDBG program caps social service expenditures at 20% of the total\nallocation.\nMayor Johnson stated the federal government still works on a one-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 4, "text": "year funding; allocation adjustments would need to be made based on\nthe funding received.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some projects are long-range, such as\nthe Woodstock to Webster Street Project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated only social\nservice contracts are on the two-year funding cycle.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the two-year funding cycle provides an\nelement of stability for non-profits; he supports the two-year\nfunding cycle.\nMayor Johnson stated she is happy the Woodstock to Webster Street\nProject has CDBG funding; the Council supports the project and\nfeels strongly about moving forward as quickly as possible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the SSHRB for recommendations;\nstated the SSHRB would be tapped to monitor the progress; decreased\nfunding is a possibility next year.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]\n(06-207) Public Hearing to consider an amendment to Master Fee\nResolution No. 12191 to Adjust Appeal Fees to the Planning Board\nand City Council; and\n(06-207A) Resolution No. 13945, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No.\n12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals to the Planning Board and\nto the City Council. Adopted.\nThe Building and Planning Director provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that San Jose's flat fee is $1,925 plus time\nand materials; she does not like the current system and would\nprefer a flat fee; cost recovery is not an issue for her; detailed\naccounting would need to be provided to the appellant if the City\nwere to charge for time and materials.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how many appeals were filed in\n2005, and whether the time charged was for salary or hourly\nemployees.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded that 13 appeals were\nfiled in 2005; stated the average cost was $1,061; the $100 per-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 5, "text": "hour rate is a blended rate.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether hourly and salary employees work on\nan appeal, to which the Building and Planning Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the Master Fee schedule would be\nreviewed, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in\nMay.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of amendment) : Irene Dieter, Alameda\n(submitted letter) ; Robert Gavrich, Alameda (submitted handout) ;\nDorothy Reid, Alameda; Li Volin, Alameda: Ani Dimusheva, Alameda\n(submitted letter) ; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) i Christopher Buckley, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson stated homeowners should not be charged large fees;\nthe court system has a flat fee for appeals and has a fee waiver\nprocess; she favors a flat fee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated he is in favor of making the appeal\nfee as simple as possible; a $100 flat fee is large enough to\nprevent frivolous appeals; cost recovery is meaningless because\n$13,000 in appeal fees is nothing for a $3.5 million budget ; the\ncost recovery policy needs to address when the Master Fee schedule\nis reviewed; people should know that any Councilmember or Planning\nBoard Member can request a Call for Review at no cost; a $100 flat\nfee would have people pause before filing an appeal just because\nthey dislike their neighbor.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a fair and open government practice is\nneeded; other cities have recognized that non-applicant fees should\nhave a flat rate; applicants carry a heavier burden; the Council\nhas reversed Planning Board decisions in the past; developers\nalready pay large permit fees; he would like to review past history\nof appeal fees.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan would prefer\ndifferent fees for applicants and non-applicants.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded that applicants in other cities\nappear to be charged time and material.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that applicants often are individual\nhomeowners.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) required projects are pushed to a higher level; a flat rate\n[for both appellants and applicants) would be fine.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the current rule has a chilling affect\non free speech and needs to be changed he prefers the $100 flat\nrate; he cannot recall any frivolous appeals coming to the City\nCouncil or Planning Board in his ten years on the Council:\napologized for participating in the passage of the 2004 Ordinance\nstated the ordinance went awry.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated other concerning fees are in the Master\nFee schedule, such as traffic appeal fees.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council is trying to make the appeal\nprocess standard.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of resolution, option 2,\nwith changing the Master Fee Resolution flat rate fee for\napplicants and non-applicants to $100.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Vice Mayor Gilmore - 1. ]\nCouncilmember deHaan requested an Off Agenda Report on the\nbreakdown of appeal fees charged over the past two years.\n(06-208) Adoption of Resolution Adopting a \"Buy Alameda\"\nPhilosophy. Not adopted.\nThe Assistant to the City Manager provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City had another \"Buy Alameda\"\nresolution; stated the first priority was to have the City do\nbusiness with businesses in Alameda; the Finance Department has\ndone a good job implementing policies; policies should be included\nas part of the proposed resolution or reflected in a separate\nresolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed resolution does not\ninclude language regarding the City's internal policy and\nprocedures.\nThe City Manager stated the Municipal Code addresses a local\npreference policy; additional language could be added to reflect\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 7, "text": "the internal policies; the matter will be brought back to Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested information on the process of\nbidding out goods and services stated it is important to know that\nthere is a competitive process and that the City receives goods and\nservices at the lowest price and best quality.\nMayor Johnson requested that the bid process be brought back to\nCouncil as a separate agenda item.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested information on how much revenues\nhave increased.\nMayor Johnson requested that the matter be brought back to Council\nwith incorporating the internal purchasing policy into the\nresolution; stated that the Finance Director has been instrumental\nin the improvements made.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, stated the Council should lead the\nunification of Alameda; he would prefer to have major redevelopment\nprojects placed on a ballot.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, stated that PSBA is in favor of the proposed\nresolution; the staff report referenced a partnership between the\nCity and the Chamber of Commerce; PSBA, the West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA) and Greater Alameda Business Association (GABA)\nshould also be involved in the partnership; requested a meeting\nwith the Finance Director to discuss improvements that have been\nmade; suggested the City consolidate paper purchasing.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(\n06-209 - ) David Kirwin, Alameda, inquired when the Civic Center\nscale model would be prepared; stated that currently the project\ncosts are approximately $30 million without financing costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the theater cost is not $30 million;\nrequested clarification on the costs.\nThe City Manager stated that the theater, parking structure, and\nCineplex costs are approximately $28 million; the historic theater\nis the largest component because of restoration costs.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the historic theater cost is\napproximately $13 million; the parking structure cost is\napproximately $9 to $10 million.\nThe City Manager stated that a model should be completed by June\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 8, "text": "for the downtown area.\nMayor Johnson stated bids [ for the theater] should be coming back\nin May; costs would be known at that time.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the initial estimate was approximately\n$9.5 for refurbishing the historic theater; now costs are $13\nmillion; on-going vigilance will be needed as the project proceeds.\nMr. Kirwin stated he would like to know the cap before the project\nis initiated.\n(06-210) Dorothy Reid, Alameda, stated the public should be\nadvised that projects could be handled by bringing concerns to a\nCouncilmember's attention so the Councilmember can request a Call\nfor Review at no charge.\n(06-211) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that Alameda should have a\nSunshine Ordinance as strong as Oakland's which aims at opening up\ngovernment to public scrutiny and ensuring that government is more\naccountable in terms of public record and public meetings.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-212) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Film Commission. Continued to May 2, 2006.\n(06 -1213 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated there are concerns with the\nTarget project; the entire project should be discussed so that\neveryone understands what the entire project entails discussions\nhave suggested that a parking structure is being contemplated.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 9, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2006- - -5:30 P.M.\nAgenda:\n(06-197) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to Subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9; Number of cases: One. Not held.\nMayor Johnson announced that the Council did not discuss the\nmatter.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -APRIL 18, 2006- -5:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Chair Johnson - 4.\nAbsent :\nCommissioner Gilmore - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(06-011) Conference with Real Property Negotiators - Property: 2319\nCentral Avenue, Barceluna Caf\u00e9; Negotiating parties : Community\nImprovement Commission and Charles Carlise; Under negotiation:\nPrice and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Chair Johnson announced that the Commission obtained briefing\nfrom real property negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING\nTUESDAY- -APRIL 18, 2006- - -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:27 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nCommissioner Torrey, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nVice\nMayor/Board Member/Commissioner\nGilmore - 1.\nMINUTES\n(06-214CC/06-12CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on March 21, 2006.\nApproved.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\nthe minutes.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent :\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore - 1]\nAGENDA ITEM\n(06-215CC/06-13CIC) Discussion of City Attorney/General Counsel\nLegal Services and staffing options.\nThe City Attorney provided a brief presentation on staffing\noptions.\nBurney Matthews, Alameda, stated that he does not see how two\nattorneys can handle all of the issues facing the City; the Police\nDepartment's relationship with the City Attorney saved the City\nthousands of dollars over the years; outsourcing will not keep\nlitigation costs at a minimum.\nMayor/Chair\nJohnson\nstated\nthat\nthe\nCouncil/Board\nlembers/Commissioners are not suggesting outsourcing; outsourcing\nis only one option.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 12, "text": "Counci lmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated residents\nwere led to believe that the City needed a fully staffed Attorneys\nOffice in 1937; the City has not been flying with all wings in\nplace over the past year; Option One seems consistent with what\nprompted creating the City Attorney': office in 1937.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated she would prefer to have Vice\nMayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore's input; outside counsel\ncosts have ranged from $2.5 to $3 million; the\nCouncil/Board/Commission have been receiving monthly reports on the\ncosts of outside counsel; now the costs are within a reasonable\nrange; the Council/Board/Commission should have a better\nunderstanding on the operation of the City Attorney's Office; the\nCouncil/Board/Commission should not focus on the number of\nattorneys on staff but on how to deal with outside counsel costs\nand the combined costs; $1.4 million is budgeted for outside\ncounsel this year.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the costs for\noutside counsel have gone down; the Council/Board/Commission should\nconcentrate on filling the City Attorney's position; suggested\nfilling one of the attorney vacancies immediately.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the Council/Board/Commission would have\na better understanding on how to model the rest of the City\nAttorney's Office once the City Attorney's position is discussed.\nouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated hiring from\nwithin the City is a possibility.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City\nAttorney position should be posted as soon as possible; he would\nprefer to discuss filling the vacancies when Vice Mayor Gilmore is\npresent.\nlouncilmember/Boar Member/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of\nannouncing the City Attorney position and filling one other\nattorney position.\nMayor/Chair Johnson concurred that the City Attorney position\nshould be announced; stated she would want to have Vice Mayor/Board\nMember/Commissioner Gilmore's input.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog stated the process\nfor ramping up to five attorneys, including the City Attorney,\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-04-18", "page": 13, "text": "should begin.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Daysog seconded the motion.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated a Council/Board/Commission discussion on\nfilling the vacancy from within should be scheduled.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated he was\nwilling to take his motion off the table and have the\nCouncil/Board/Commission discuss the matter in two weeks.\nCouncilmember/Board/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of meeting\nin two weeks to discuss the matter.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Absent : Vice\nMayor/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore - 1. ]\nThe City Manager clarified that the matter would be discussed at\nthe May 2 Closed Session and Regular City Council meetings.\nCommissioner Torrey stated he did not receive any notice of the\nmeeting in advance.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 9:54 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission, and\nHousing Authority Board of Commissioners\nApril 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-04-18.pdf"}