{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 20, 2007- 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council meeting at 8:30\np.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(07-073 - ) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Appointing\nWalter Schlueter [paragraph no. 07-088] would be heard before the\nConsent Calendar items removed for discussion.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-074) Proclamation declaring the period of January 30, 2007 to\nApril 4, 2007 as A Season for Nonviolence.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Audrey Lord-\nHausman with the Development Services Department.\nMs. Lord-Hausman thanked Council for the proclamation; stated it is\nimportant to ensure that children live in a safe community; a youth\nspeech contest has been initiated in partnership with the School\nDistrict.\n(07-075) Presentation of City Map Project.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief report.\nMayor Johnson thanked Jeanette Copperwaite with Copperwaite Digital\nMedia for the City Map design.\nMs. Copperwaite stated it was a pleasure to work on the City Map.\nKathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) , thanked\nthe City for providing the City Map.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to accept the\nQuarterly Investment Report [paragraph no. 07-079], the\nrecommendation to amend Contracts [paragraph no. 07-080], and\nResolutions Amending City of Alameda Resolution Nos. 13937 and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 2, "text": "13907 [paragraph nos. 07-086 and 07-086A] were removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n( * 07-076) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on February 6, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-077) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,803,536.53.\n(*07-078) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the period ending September 30, 2006. Accepted.\n(07-079) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor the period ending December 31, 2006.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the County Auditor-Controller offered to\nreview the City's investment portfolio and facilitate a meeting\nwith the County Treasurer to review investment opportunities\nThe City Treasurer gave a briefing on the City's Investment Report.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the two manager's performances\ndiffer.\nThe City Treasurer responded the difference is very small; stated\none manager manages longer term bonds, which gives a little higher\nreturn over time.\nMayor Johnson requested that the City Treasurer review the City's\nInvestment Policy when meeting with the County Auditor-Controller\nor that he conduct his own review.\nThe City Treasurer stated the Finance Director is very bright and\ncontinues to investigate the investment arena.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendatior with\ndirection that the City Treasurer meet with the County Auditor-\nController and County Treasurer to review the City's investment\nportfolio and policy and to report back to Council in the next\nQuarterly Report or sooner.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 3, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(07-080 -\n)\nRecommendation to amend Contracts with Lamphier-Gregory\nand Omni Means for environmental and traffic evaluations of the\nproposed expansion of the Alameda Towne Centre and amend Contract\nwith Harsch Investment Realty for payment of consultant and staff\ncosts.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.\nEugenie Thomson, Alameda (submitted handout) urged Council to send\nthe scope back to the Planning Board for further discussion.\nDorothy Reid, Alameda, stated she is concerned with the scope;\naccurate traffic numbers are needed to make a real decision.\nClaire Risley, Alameda (submitted handout) urged Council not to\napprove the requested Contract revisions; the scope of work fails\nto analyze the environmental impacts of the entire Target building;\nthe project is piece mealed; the California courts make it very\nclear that a public agency may not divide a single project into\nsmaller sub-projects to avoid the responsibility of considering the\nenvironmental impact of the project as a whole.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the proposed additional work is a\ndirect outgrowth of the Planning Board, Transportation Commission\nand general public; inquired whether the additional scope of work\nis covered adequately.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the\n$12,000 referenced by Ms. Thomson is included in the existing\ntraffic study and the draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) ; the\nwork was performed outside the original scope of work; staff has\nreviewed all comments received after the draft EIR; piece mealing\ncomments have been submitted into the record; responses will be\nincluded in the final EIR.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff would be provided with\nthe Planning Board, Transportation Commission and public comments.\nThe Supervising Planner responded comments would be addressed in\nthe future; stated the Traffic Engineer, Public Works and Planning\nstaff, City Attorney's office, and environmental consultant had\nextensive discussions on how to respond to comments received; there\nwere concerns about additional intersections on Park Street and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 4, "text": "Otis Drive and unanticipated conseguences from existing traffic\nsignal improvements.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the study would dovetail with the\nTransportation Commission's concerns regarding looking beyond the\nfocused area.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff is looking at intersections\nas far away as Park Street and Lincoln Avenue; stated staff is\nfollowing up with the Transportation Commission's bicycle\ninterconnection, transit and pedestrian concerns; an on-sight\nworkshop is scheduled with the Planning Board on March 12.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Safeway fueling station\nand Alameda Landing entitlement changes would be discussed.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that he received comments on the\nSafeway fueling station from John Knox White with the\nTransportation Commission; stated comments would be discussed at\nthe March 12 Planning Board meeting; staff is not looking at how\nAlameda Landing relates to the project.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether 2005 was the baseline date\nfor determining tax and traffic data.\nThe Supervising Planner responded real data was gathered in 2002-\n2003 for the previous shopping center expansion proposal; stated\nOmni-Means - collected new data for the 2005 proposal; traffic levels\nwere lower because of vacancies; the higher number was used in the\ntraffic study.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated not all retail is equal : inquired\nwhether a different retailer would have a different requirement.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the project is treated as a\nshopping center with a variety of retail uses; stated retailers are\ntreated the same.\nCouncilmember deHaan provided a handout stated tax data was used\nas a base to make traffic determinations.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the traffic study was based on\ntrip generation factors; the information was consolidated into\nstandard numbers that apply to a broad range of shopping centers.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Bayfair Mall Target has the same\nretail square footage as the proposed Target ; the Bayfair Mall\nTarget is near BART, bus lines, and Interstates 880 and 580;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 5, "text": "inquired why traffic impacts would not be assumed when\ntransportation access is not good.\nThe Supervising Planner inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore was\nreferring to the total size of the store.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded Target needs to generate sale\nnumbers to make the store work; stated the Bayfair Target is a\nregional shopping center that would draw more consumers because of\nthe better transportation corridor; the proposed Target has the\nsame size retail space and worse transportation access ; inquired\nwhy a same size store would be built if retail sales would not be\nthe same.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the traffic study is based on the\ntotal square footage of the shopping center, including Target ;\nstated measurements are made by either counting cars or calculating\nstandard trip generation factors for different types of businesses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated impacts are not being debated ;\nquestions need to be answered on whether the draft EIR has\ndeficiencies; he does not believe the proposed Target would have no\ntraffic impact.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the draft EIR identifies significant\ntraffic impacts and includes mitigation measures.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is some flexibility\nfor when the work should be done or for adjustments to data\ncollection methods.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the project has been in the\nCity's hands for two years; stated the process should have been\ncompleted a year ago under the Permit Streamlining Acti he would\nnot recommend waiting to update the traffic study; the existing\ndraft EIR includes some mitigation monitors.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the final EIR would\ndescribe methods used to do the additional work, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there are unanswered questions the\nContract needs to be approved to get the work done; inquired\nwhether Ms. Risley's issue would be addressed in the final EIR.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the piece mealing comments have\nbeen submitted and would be addressed in the final EIR.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the additional work is the result of\nthe Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and community input,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated additional traffic analysis is recommended by\nthe Planning Board, Transportation Commission, and public; inquired\nwhat is not being addressed in the current scope.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that he did not know; stated no\nspecifics were offered; staff is responding to any written comments\nreceived; the City's EIR guidelines require written response to any\ncomments.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the additional analysis would\naddress timing, Target size, and tenant issues.\nThe Supervising Planner responded said issues would be covered in\nthe additional analysis or in staff's professional judgment.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Planning Board had the\nopportunity to review the scope of work.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated staff\nconsolidated all comments received, which was two inches thick.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether going back to the Planning\nBoard would be more prudent.\nThe Supervising Planner responded a special meeting is scheduled\nfor March 12 to walk the site.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the scope is sufficiently broad to\nallow interaction between the Planning Board and staff to move\nforward and make adjustments as information is gathered from the\nMarch 12 meeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is the comment and discussion\nperiod once the final EIR is prepared.\nThe Supervising Planner responded there is a mandatory fifteen day\ncomment period once the final EIR is provided; stated that he\nanticipates more than a fifteen day comment period because the\nPlanning Board wants opportunities to discuss the final EIR before\nthe public hearing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated there would be a full-noticed hearing\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 7, "text": "the Planning Board would take action on the final EIR; inquired\nwhat would happen if the Planning Board approved the final EIR.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Planning Board would have the\noption of certifying the EIR and approving or denying the project\nstated a workshop could be scheduled to discuss responses.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board decision\ncould be appealed to Council, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be opportunities\nfor the public and Planning Board to comment on the final EIR, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam,\nand Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes : Councilmember deHaan - 1.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the scope should have gone to the\nPlanning Board; that he cannot support the staff recommendation.\n(*07-081) Recommendation to allocate $347,000 in Measure B Funds\nand award a Contract for Design and Construction Administration\nServices in the amount of $102,695, including contingencies, to\nBaseline Engineering for Grand Street Bridge and Ballena Boulevard\nBridge Repair and Resurfacing, No P. W. 11-06-24. Accepted.\n(\n*07-082) Recommendation to authorize installation of Stops Signs\nto replace Yield Signs at the intersections of Adams Street and\nPeach Street; Post Street and Washington Street; Calhoun Street and\nPeach Street, Fairview Avenue and Cornell Drive; Bayo Vista Avenue\nand Cornell Drive; Harvard Drive and Windsor Drive; Cambridge Drive\nand Windsor Drive. Accepted.\n(\n*07-083) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for installation of Countdown Pedestrian\nSignal Heads and Audible Pedestrian Signals, No. P.W. 01-07-01.\nAccepted.\n(*07-084) Resolution No. 14068, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for Repair of\nthe Main Street Ferry Terminal Pier, and Authorizing the City\nManager to Enter into Such an Agreement.\" Adopted.\n( *07-085) Resolution No. 14069, \"Approving the Application for\nCalifornia Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) Grant Funds\nUnder the California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 8, "text": "Parks and Coastal Protection Act of 2002. Adopted.\n(07-086) Resolution No. 14070, \"Amending City of Alameda\nResolution No. 13937 to Change the Timing of Compliance for the\nFinal Lighting and Signage Plan Condition of Approval for Design\nReview DR-5-0041, the Proposed Cineplex at 2305 Central Avenue,\nfrom \"Prior to Issuance of Building Permit\" to \"Prior to the\nIssuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy\". and to Change\nthe Timing of Compliance for the Final Lighting, Signage, and\nLandscaping Plan Condition of Approval for Design Review DR05-0028,\nthe Proposed Parking Garage at 1416 Oak Street, from \"Prior to\nIssuance of Building Permit\" to \"Prior to the Issuance of\na\nTemporary Certificate of Occupancy. Adopted; and\n(07-086A) Resolution No. 14071, \"Resolution Amending City of\nAlameda Resolution No. 13907 to Change the Timing of Compliance for\nthe Queuing Plan Condition of Approval for Use Permit UP05-0018\nfrom \"Prior to Issuance of Building Permit\" to \"Prior to the\nIssuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she would like the Planning Board to\nhave a full discussion on trees; she likes the idea of continuing\nthe sycamore trees along Central Avenue; tree spacing issues can be\nworked out.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated planting\na different type tree would be contrary to the Master Tree Plan;\nmajor streets should have the same type tree.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested staff to review the Oak Street tree\ntreatment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated aphid infested trees are messy.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolutions with\ndirection that the Planning Board address tree selection.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other\ndevelopers have been given the opportunity to postpone discussions\nin order not to delay design approval.\nThe Development Services Director responded it is very unusual to\nhave sign and landscaping designs done so early in the project.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 9, "text": "(*07-087) Ordinance No. 2963, \"Repeal the Existing Time Limit for\nIncurring Debt in the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project. \"\nFinally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-088) Resolution No. 14072, \"Appointing Walter Schlueter as a\nmember of the Housing Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Mr. Walter Schlueter.\nMr. Schlueter stated that he looks forward to serving on the\nHousing Commission.\n(07-089) Public Hearing to consider Parcel Map No. 9286, (1900,\n1910, 1920, 1930, 1950, 1960, and 1980 North Loop Road) to merge\nsix existing parcels into five parcels with each parcel\naccommodating new flexible use building (warehouse, distribution,\nlight manufacturing and administrative office) The site is located\nwithin the Harbor Bay Business Park in the C-M-PD, Commercial\nManufacturing, Planned Development Zoning District; and\n(07-089A) Resolution No. 14073, \"Approving Parcel Map 9286 (TM 06-\n0005) for the Purpose of Establishing Five Commercial Lots Located\nat 1900-1980 North Loop Road. Adopted.\nThe Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated good progress has\nbeen made; he looks forward to having commercial, non-retail\ndevelopment since the Quarterly Sales Tax report shows a decrease\nin business-to-business taxes.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the area is parceled out.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the Ferry Terminal\narea is still undeveloped.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 10, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-090 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Golf Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Bill R. Delaney.\n(07-091) Vice Mayor Tam stated she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities East Bay Division February 15, 2007 dinner\nmeeting bond funding allocation principles and term limits were\ndiscussed.\n(07-092) Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on the new\nLibrary operations, staffing and long range plans, including\nlibrary branch improvements.\n(07-093) Councilmember Matarrese requested that staff provide a\npicture and an Off Agenda Report on how Long's will look after\nconstruction is complete; requested that staff inquire whether\nLong's would consider landscaping the corner across from City Hall.\n(07-094) Councilmember deHaan requested that vegetation options be\nconsidered for Long's north side.\n(07-095\n-\n)\nCouncilmember deHaan stated CalTrans plans to replace the\nWebster Street Tube lighting similar to the Caldecott Tunnel\nlighting; there is garbage in the Webster Street Tube entryway the\nfence is damaged Alameda's gateway looks scraggly.\n(07-096 - ) Mayor Johnson stated she spoke to Oakland Councilmember\nQuan regarding the City of Oakland's styrofoam ordinance which has\nbeen in effect since January 1, 2007; San Francisco's ordinance\nwill become effective July, 2007; Berkeley has an ordinance.\nrequested that the Climate Protection Campaign Task Force review\nthe matter.\n(07-097) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for efforts made to\neliminate the clothing collection bins on public areas.\nThe City Manager stated Code Enforcement was responsible for the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 11, "text": "removal of the bins.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:46 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\n11\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 20, 2007-6:45 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(07-072) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAll City Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from\nLabor Negotiators on the status of negotiations with various City\nbargaining units; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 20, 2007- -7:27 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nCommissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(07-003) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission Meeting\nheld on January 16, 2007. Approved.\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(07-004) Report on Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking Structure\nProject Construction update.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what is the likelihood of bringing\nback value-engineering items.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the likelihood is good if there\nare no significant surprises.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the date has expired on approximately\n25% of the items.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated the majority of the fa\u00e7ade items\nhave no immediate time limit.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired what is the last date for adding in\nthe bas-relief; further inquired what type of finish is on the bas-\nrelief.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded staff has requested the\nContractor to hold the price for six months; stated the bas-relief\nfinish is cast concrete.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is concerned the cost expended for\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 14, "text": "responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the General Contractor plans\non adding back value engineering items, to which the Redevelopment\nManager responded in the negative.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the canopies would be\nstandard.\nThe Architect responded that the State Architect and Section 106\nConsultant requested that the historic theater, Cineplex and\nparking structure canopies be different.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 15, "text": "Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the Architect is comfortable\nwith different canopies, to which the Architect responded in the\naffirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the north elevation could\nbe corrected; stated the original design is better.\nThe Architect responded keeping all facades level is expensive.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what the cost would be, to which\nthe Architect responded at least $50,000.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what would be left in the\ncontingency fund by putting the sheer wall back or spending $50,000\nto fix the wall.\nThe Architect responded combining the two sheer walls into one wall\nsaved a lot of money i stated a false sheer wall would cost between\n$80,000 and $90,000.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the remaining\ncontingency, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded\napproximately $260,000.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested staff to investigate options to\nmitigate the parking garage north wall sloping appearance; stated\nthe Oak Street presentation is nice.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated options would be explored.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired what is the final date to make\ndecisions.\nThe Architect responded decisions could be made later because the\nissue is not structural.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the timeline is being held to\nNovember.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the timeline is subject to\nschedules noted in the Contract.\nCommissioner deHaan stated great progress has been made with the\nhistoric theater and parking garage; inquired whether the Cineplex\nwould dovetail with the historic theater and parking garage\ncompletion.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the Cineplex would take less\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 16, "text": "time; stated the Contractor is hoping for completion at the end of\nthis year; the first couple of months of 2008 is more realistic.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:30 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\n4\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 20, 2007- - -7:31 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 9:46 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA ITEM\n(07-098CC/07-005CIC) Recommendation to accept the Fiscal Year 2007\nSecond Quarter Financial Report and budget adjustments.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether reserve money is funding the\nGolf budget, to which the Finance Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired how much is being drawn from the\nreserves.\nThe Finance Director responded the Fiscal Year would end with a\n$500,000 loss; stated depreciation is part of the loss; the net\ncash loss is approximately $250,000 to $300,000.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the money used to supplement the Golf\nbudget was set aside for the Clubhouse; finding a way to stop\nspending reserve money is important.\nThe City Manager stated several options are being considered; the\nGolf Commission recommended a rate increase be presented to Council\nat the March 20 City Council meeting.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she is interested in cost savings\nrather than a rate increase; rounds are declining; budget controls\nneed to be put in place; alarms should have gone off when reserve\nmoney was being spent a separate, inaccessible account should be\nset for a reasonable operating reserve; the money has not been used\nfor the intended purpose.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated a resolution\ncould be adopted that states that the Golf Commission cannot spend\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\n1\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 18, "text": "Member/Commissioner Gilmore's suggestion; the budget should not use\nthe net asset balance as part of the regular operating budget ; the\nintended purpose is not to use the money for operations.\nThe City Manager stated the matter would be brought back to address\nimpacts and recommend budget adjustments.\nCouncilmember/Board MMember/Commissioner deHaan stated a short-term\nfix is needed; setting a benchmark would be a healthy start.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget would be set, not benchmarks.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nthe [General Fund reserve would be over 20% with the adjustment,\nto which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese's\ninquiry about the amount, the Finance Director stated $415,645.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether\nspending $400,000 on deferred maintenance would be better, to which\nthe Finance Director responded that she would not recommend using\nthe money for deferred maintenance. the matter could be considered\nin the next budget.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the matter\nshould be included in the next budget.\nlouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated discussions\nshould address whether and when to build reserves back up to 25%.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam requested that the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\n2\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 19, "text": "discussion include a review of the reserve threshold needed to\nsecure good bonding rates.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired why the\nreserve target is 25%.\nThe Finance Director responded 25% represents approximately two to\nthree months of payables; stated 25% has been memorialized as part\nof the City's financial policies; the amount was temporarily\nreduced in order to meet deferred maintenance goals.\nCouncilmember/Board  ember/Commissioner deHaan stated the reserve\nshould get back to 25%; including a 1% to 2% increase in the next\nbudget cycle would be nice.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the issue should be discussed; the 25%\nreserve was accumulated from deferring maintenance; the goal should\nbe 25% but not at the expense of accumulating deferred maintenance.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the deferred\nmaintenance backlog should be understood by the next budget.\nThe City Manager stated an infrastructure update would be\npresented.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the\nten-year forecast would be pursued.\nThe Finance Director responded the mid-year items would be added to\nthe ten-year forecast; past performance is no predictor of the\nfuture.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the sewer fund is lower than\nexpected to which the Finance Director responded the sewer fund is\nlower because only a partial payment has been received from the\nCounty.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired when the proposed Golf resolution\ncould come back, to which the City Manager responded 30 days.\nThe Finance Director stated the resolution could be addressed at\nthe March 20 City Council meeting.\nIn response to Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's\ninquiry regarding Golf cost allocation charges, the Finance\nDirector stated Council could decide not to charge a particular\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\n3\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 20, "text": "fund.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated cost allocations reflect the cost of\ndoing business; the General Fund or other departments would be\nsubsidizing Golf operations if cost allocations were eliminated.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated costs are\nstandard overhead costs that should be a burden against the\nactivity; the Golf Commission was under the interpretation that the\nmoney was going to the General Fund and being used as discretionary\nwhich is not the case; the Commission needs to understand that the\ncosts support operations.\nThe Finance Director stated the general administrative services are\na\nfunction found in any business; all operating departments need to\nshare in the costs.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated that he did\nnot want any confusion.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\nthe staff recommendation with direction to bring a resolution\nforward to mandate a balanced budget in the Golf Fund and to have a\ndiscussion on Reserve funds at the next budget cycle.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder\ndiscussion,\nMayor/Chair\nJohnson\nstated\nthe\nCouncil/Board/Commission requested that the resolution come back\nwithin 30 days; a balanced budget could be implemented sooner.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe Special Joint Meeting at 10:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\n4\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-20", "page": 21, "text": "Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council,\n5\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority,\nand Community Improvement Commission\nFebruary 20, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-20.pdf"}