{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 17, 2007- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:30\np.m. Vice Mayor Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-167) Proclamation declaring April 21, 2007 as Earth Day\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Duane Watson,\nowner of Lee Auto.\nMr. Watson thanked Council for the proclamation; encouraged\neveryone to recycle as much as possible.\n(07-168) Proclamation declaring the month of April as Fair Housing\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mona Breed,\nExecutive Director of Sentinel Fair Housing.\nMs. Breed thanked Council for the proclamation; stated Sentinel\nFair Housing has enjoyed a productive partnership with the City.\n(07-169) Presentation on Implementation of the CCG Consulting\nL.L.C. Report, \"An Analysis of Telecom Operations.\nMayor Johnson introduced Ann McCormick, Public Utilities Board\n(PUB) President; stated that tonight a report is being presented on\nthe progress of implementing the operational recommendations\nprepared by CCG Consulting; the PUB has a responsibility to operate\nthe Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) system under the City's\nCharter the Charter specifies that Council may request reports\nfrom the PUB regarding system operations; the Charter does not\nauthorize Council to direct the operations; the PUB has the\nresponsibility to direct the operations.\nMs. McCormick stated sharing information about AP&T'S operational\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 2, "text": "changes is a pleasure; a presentation was given to the PUB this\nweek; the report summarizes information that is provided to the PUB\non a monthly basis; introduced the AP&T General Manager.\nMayor Johnson welcomed the AP&T General Manager to Alameda.\nThe AP&T General Manager provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested a definition of the term \"churn. \"\nThe AP&T General Manager stated churn is the number of customers\nwho leave the system every month; the industry average is\napproximately 2.1%; a 1% churn is being recommended over a over a\nfive-year period.\nThe AP&T General Manager continued with the presentation.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what voice service involves.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded the City needs to chose the type\nof technology to utilize; there are two business models; one\ninvolves buying a softswitch and would provide all telephone\nservices; the other is a partnership model the City would contract\nwith someone to provide service and billing; the two big issues are\nrevenue and timed market; timed market could be nine to fourteen\nmonths for the softswitch approach; the revenue is high; service\ncould be delivered within six months with the partnership model,\nbut revenue is less; the City would receive a share of the revenue\ntechnology is being evaluated; both models have certain regulatory\nissues.\nVice Mayor Tam requested clarification on AP&T'S obligations to\nprovide a public access channel, studio, internship, etc.\nThe AP&T General Manager stated the franchise agreement requires\nAP&T to provide a public access channel, two internships per year,\nand equipment for a studio; a hybrid approach has been done in the\npast to provide some of the elements and to provide substantial\npostproduction services; current postproduction commitments will be\ncompleted.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether completed footage could be turned\nover to AP&T for broadcasting, to which the AP&T General Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the survey included the\nlikelihood of voice service customers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 3, "text": "The AP&T General Manager responded staff is in the process\nreviewing the draft report and providing comments; the final report\nis to be presented to the PUB at their next meeting; the initial\nfeedback has been positive and shows that customers would switch to\nAP&T if the service were cheaper.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the figures are close to what\nthe Consultant estimated for success.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded the figures would be known after\nfollow up is completed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that many of the Consultant's\nsuggestions have been implemented; inquired whether there would be\nadditional cost-saving opportunities.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded the Consultant was clear that\nimplementing everything suggested would be a huge challenge; stated\nthe main focus is to get to a zero inter-fund advance; AP&T expects\nto transfer approximately $1. 2 million from the power division to\nthe telecom side this year, which is down from the $2.6 originally\nbudgeted; AP&T is heading in the right direction.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated cost savings have been netted from\nactions taken already inquired whether the operation would be\nviable as status quo.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded all business plans include\nrefinancing the 2009 bond; cutting costs, increasing revenue and\nincreasing operation efficiencies are needed to make up the\ndifference and meet the obligation; a lot of the cost cutting is\ncoming first; the major revenue enhancing strategies would come\nlater; he does not see major cost cutting strategies in the future;\nsome strategies have been postponed, such as the billing system;\nthe matter would be reviewed in 2008.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the AP&T General Manager and PUB\nfor the presentation; stated it is important for the public to be\nkept appraised; progress is being made; thanked the AP&T General\nManager for reviewing the commercial market inquired when voice\nwould become part of the budget line item.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded Fiscal Year 2008; stated steps\nare being taken to explore different business models.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a rate increase is projected in\nthe coming year's budget ; the rate would still be below Comcast' S\nrates; inquired whether the rate would be below Alameda Comcast\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 4, "text": "rates, not an average Comcast rate, to which the AP&T General\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that people should be switching to\nAP&T; AP&T internet and cable is cheaper than Comcast, even with\nthe rate increase; Alamedan's should be investing in themselves.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated reducing the churn to 1% seems like a\nformidable task; inquired how the churn would be reduced for the\nmilitary requested an explanation on the recommendation for\nincreased web presence.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded the churn reduction is an\nincredibly ambitious goal; stated all recommendations will be\ntried; needed changes will be monitored; web presence connects with\ncustomer service; he would like to get some of the pressure off the\nCustomer Service Center through the web; the Customer Service\nCenter is inundated with calls; the phone system is being upgraded\nhe would like to move non-essential type customer interactions to\nthe web.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the number of customers has\nincreased.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded there has been a leveling off;\nstated there has been a net of 30 customers lost in the last three\nmonths; there is a churn of 250 to 300 customers leaving AP&T; AP&T\ngets as many customers back, minus 30.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether reduced marketing efforts\nhave had an impact.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded door-to-door sales people were\nused in the past; stated a plateau was reached; it was time to try\na different way to reach customers; no one has been on the streets\nfor an extended period of time since the elimination of the door-\nto-door sales people; management structure has changed; a few\nchanges have been made in terms of refocusing some of the reporting\nrelationships ; low-cost/Guerilla marketing will be reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it is in the public's best interest to\nbe supportive.\nThe AP&T General Manager stated staff is very focused and wants to\nmake the business a success.\nMayor Johnson stated that the AP&T General Manager is doing a great\njob in moving both the power and electric sides forward as\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 5, "text": "businesses; inquired what is the goal beyond zero inter-fund\nadvances.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded staff is reviewing ways to make\nAP&T a viable business; voice is a major piece in making AP&T\nviable; operational efficiencies are reviewed continually; there\nmay be some additional revenue increasing strategies for the\ninternet service.\nMayor Johnson inquired how many telecom and power staff reductions\nhave been made.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded eleven to thirteen staff\nreductions occurred from the previous fiscal year to this fiscal\nyear; ten reductions are estimated for the proposed Fiscal Year\n2008 budget budgeted positions peaked at 142 several years ago;\nthe budget is projecting 118 positions for next year.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the 118 positions would be for power\nand telecom, to which the AP&T General Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the postproduction commitment would\nend, to which the AP&T General Manager responded May for the\nexisting programs.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people would be able to run the\ncommunity access programs but no editing would be done.\nThe AP&T General Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there\nmay be some opportunities for interns to prepare specific programs\nand projects and provide some very focused, specialized training to\npeople in the community.\nMayor Johnson stated editing is a luxury for the community but is\nnot affordable at this point editing may be affordable in the\nfuture; inquired whether the power and telecom sides are being\nreviewed for operational efficiencies, to which the AP&T General\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated electric staffing levels are being\nbrought down to pre-1998 levels; requested more information on the\nmatter.\nThe AP&T General Manager stated he would discuss the matter with\nCouncilmember deHaan at a later time.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson announced that the Introduction of Ordinance\n[paragraph no. 07-180] was removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approved of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [ Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n(*07-170)\nMinutes of the Special and Regular City Council\nMeetings held on April 3, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-171) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,149,429.28\n(*07-172) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$125,000 to Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. for update of the City's\nAmericans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan and Self-Evaluation\nPlan.\n(\n*07-173) Recommendation to approve joining the Joint Powers\nAgreement known as the Bay Area Employee Relations Services\n(BAERS) .\n(*07-174) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$857,200, including contingencies, to Golden Bay Construction, Inc.\nfor Repair of Portland Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway\nand Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2006-07, Phase 8, No. P.W.\n08-06-18.\n(*07-175) - Recommendation to accept the work of Ransome Company for\nSite Improvements and Designed Mobile Systems Industries, Inc. for\nModular Building and Foundation Improvements associated with the\nNew Modular Building (Washington Park Community Center) at Upper\nWashington Park, No. P.W. 05-06-17.\n(*07-176) Recommendation to award a five-year Vehicle Tow Contract\nto Ken Betts Towing.\n(*07-177) - Recommendation to approve second amendment to Contract\nwith Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. increasing the amount by\n$25,000 for consultant services to assist with Ballena Isle Marina\nnegotiations.\n(*07-178) Recommendation to reject Sole Bid and Resolution No.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 7, "text": "14082, \"Authorizing Open Market Negotiation of Contract Pursuant to\nSection 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter and Purchase of a Modular\nRecreational Building and Site Improvements at Bayport, Project No.\n83110100, and Authorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an\nAgreement. \" Adopted.\n(*07-179) Resolution No. 14083, \"Vacating a Portion of a Ten-Foot\nWide Power Easement and Recordation of Quitclaim Deed Within Parcel\n2, Parcel Map 2542 (Alameda Towne Centre) \" Adopted.\n(\n07-180) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Alameda Municipal Code\nSubsection 23-6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) of Section 23-6 -\n(Harbor and Tidelands) of Chapter XXIII (Parks, Recreation Areas\nand Public Property) by Repealing Subsection 23-6.2 in Its Entirety\nand Adding a New Subsection 23-6.2 (Operation of Power Boats) that\nIncorporates Speed Limits for Vessels Propelled by Machinery in an\nEstuary or Channel and Continues the Prohibition of Power Boats in\nLagoons. Introduced.\nJim Silver, Alameda, stated the Estuary is highly policed; he does\nnot feel ticketing is needed; warnings are adequate.\nTimothy Corfey, Alameda, stated police presence is not excessive on\nthe Estuary; he has an issue with the speed limit speeds are\ndifficult to determine.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance would be\nenforceable by other agencies that patrol the waterways, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that she received a call from someone\nassociated with the Oakland Strokes an incident occurred on the\nwaterway during practice yesterday; the Oakland Strokes strongly\nsupport the proposed ordinance.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested clarification on how the speed\nlimit is gauged.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated the speed limit is gauged by the\ndistance away from a launch ramp or a dock; the ordinance does not\nprevent a boater from driving any desired speed down the center of\nthe Estuary as long as they are not within one hundred feet of a\ndock; the Harbors & Navigation Code is used for repeat offenders\nthe District Attorney's office has dismissed all citations issued\nunder the Harbors & Navigations Code; the District Attorney's\noffice would be more inclined to prosecute the cases if the City\nhad an ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance is the same\nas State law and would allow for City enforcement without\nprosecution from the District Attorney's office.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded the District Attorney's office\nwould still prosecute; stated the proposed ordinance is slightly\ndifferent and more specific than the Harbors & Navigation Code\nsections the District Attorney's office is uncomfortable with how\nthe Harbors & Navigation Code applies to the City's situation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance requirements\nare similar to the Harbors & Navigation Code requirements, to which\nthe Police Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how commercial vessels and barges\nwould be affected.\nThe Police Lieutenant responded the proposed ordinance would apply\nto all vessels; stated commercial boaters do not cause problems;\nMaritime law holds all boaters responsible for individual damage.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the ferry exceeds five-miles per hour.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated the Alameda Ferry Terminal is the only\ndock in the area and does not infringe on any private marinas.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the proposed ordinance would\nprovide a ticketing process that would be enforceable.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated the ability to write tickets has\nalways existed; the problem is that none of the citations are being\nprosecuted.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the fines would be paid to the City\nunder the proposed ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a copy of\nthe adopted ordinance would go to the County; a bail schedule would\nbe created; the City would receive a portion the fine.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the fine would recapture some of\nthe costs associated with the Police Officer's time, to which the\nPolice Lieutenant responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager requested clarification on the affects that the\nsailboats would have.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated very little wake is produced when a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 9, "text": "boat is not sitting low in the water; sailboats are never sitting\nlow in the water and do not create a wake.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested an evaluation report after six\nmonths of patrol.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that an\nactivity briefing be provided.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-181) Recommendation to receive the Report \"EveryOne Home, the\nAlameda Countywide Homelessness and Special Needs Housing Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City has a long history of supporting\nhomeless services, starting with the creation of the Homeless Task\nForce and the Midway Shelter back in the late 1980' s; the City has\nalso funded other homeless prevention or safety-net service\nprograms through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)\nProgram, including the Alameda Red Cross ACCESS Program, the\nAlameda Food Bank, Domestic Violence Counseling programs, and\nHousing Counseling services; the City has funded and supported the\ncreation of supportive housing projects, including the Alameda\nPoint Collaborative units, the Housing Job Linkage program, and the\n52 and 39 unit rental housing units; the City has long supported\nthe efforts of the Alameda County Continuum of Care Homeless\nCouncil and other efforts to confront homelessness at a regional\nlevel in addition to participating in the development of the\nEveryOne Home Plan; the City would like to affirm its support for\nregional efforts to combat homelessness through the Alameda\nCountywide Homeless and Special Needs Housing Plan.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager introduced Linda\nGardner, Director of Alameda County Housing and Community\nDevelopment.\nMs. Gardner provided a brief Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the definition of homelessness for\nthe Everyone Home Plan.\nMs. Gardener responded a community-based and Housing and Urban\nDevelopment (HUD) definition was used; the HUD definition includes\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 10, "text": "people already in permanent, supportive housing and excludes people\nwho are couch surfing or doubled up but have no right to remain the\nhousing HUD's definition for chronic homelessness is single,\nunaccompanied adults who have been homeless for a year or more or\nfour or more times in the last three years and who have a\ndisability; all families are excluded from HUD's definition of\nchronic homelessness.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue was presented at the U.S. Conference\nof Mayors last spring homeless advocates were concerned that\nresources could be diluted because an adult child who lives in a\nparent's house could be included. inquired whether an adult child\nliving in a family member's house could be included as a homeless\nperson.\nMs. Gardener responded the Plan has a thrust for the HUD definition\nof chronic homeless and families who are truly homeless and have no\nother place the live.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the definition would exclude an adult\nliving with a family member.\nMs. Gardener responded the definition does not exclude said adult,\nbut said adult is not the focus.\nMayor Johnson stated that the committee did not recommend that a\nsimilar plan go forward at that time to the entire Conference\nbecause they were concerned about reducing the amount of benefits\navailable to homeless under the traditional definition.\nMs. Gardener stated a significant number of families and homeless\nyouth would be excluded by focusing on HUD's definition of\nhomelessness.\nVice Mayor Tam welcomed Ms. Gardener to Alameda; stated that she\nworked with Ms. Gardener when she chaired the Alameda County\nPlanning Commission; the Social Services Human Relations Board's\nCommunity Needs Assessment noted that approximately 13.6% of\nrespondents experienced nomelessness in the last three years;\ninquired how homelessness was described in the City of Alameda\nrequested comments on unique findings within the City that are\ndifferent than other parts of the County and that may be barriers\nto providing the type of affordability needed to contribute toward\nending homelessness.\nMs. Gardener responded that her survey did not come up with\nspecific numbers for the City; stated the survey was more regional\nwithin the County.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 11, "text": "Jim Franz, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB) , stated\nthe homelessness definition was left up to the respondent in the\nsurvey most people consider themselves homeless when they have no\nplace to stay. .\nVice Mayor Tam inquired what are the specific needs within the\nhomeless community.\nMr. Franz responded people are making less money than is needed to\nfill basic needs; stated different choices are made every month;\nthe Food Bank provides seven food packages per month; AP&T provides\nutility assistance; a good safety net is provided but does not keep\neveryone from becoming homeless; homelessness is a County-wide\nissue; a County-wide strategy is needed; the Plan provides an\nopportunity to work in partnership with the County over a ten-year\nperiod; encouraged Council to support the Plan.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative, stated the Collaborative\nis very excited about the Plan; the Plan would bring more resources\ntogether and provide a prospect for additional, permanent,\nsupportive housing and seamless entry into services; encouraged\nCouncil to support the Plan.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to comment on the recommendation.\nThe City Manager stated staff is recommending that Council receive\nthe report and affirm support for regional efforts to combat\nhomelessness.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is the staff's assessment of\nthe delta between endorsing or adopting the report and receiving\nthe report with regard to the City's obligations.\nMayor Johnson stated that goals have been addressed; inquired\nwhether there is a final plan that has been adopted.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated Council has\nbeen provided with the plan that outlines the goals.\nMayor Johnson stated that the staff report addresses the goals and\nnot the actual Plan.\nMs. Gardener stated the Plan is final; a new copy could be\nprovided; the content is the same as what was provided to Council.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff reviewed the Plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 12, "text": "The Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative stated staff participated in the development of the\nPlan; a commitment is needed to work on a regional level to end\nhomelessness; staff will continue to participate on the leadership\nstructure and the various committees set up to implement the Plan\non behalf of the City through the larger, County-wide process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Plan should be adopted\nsince the City is already measuring against the Plan.\nThe City Attorney responded that adoption of the Plan is not on the\nagenda this evening stated Council could consider adoption of the\nPlan in the future; there is a distinction between adoption of any\nplan or policy that becomes an official act of the City and can be\ncited as an official City policy for which the City is then\nresponsible and its own adopted policy which is a slight\ndistinction between receiving and supporting participation, all of\nwhich the City has actively done with regard to the Plan and can\ncontinue to do SO.\nfouncilmember Matarrese suggested reviewing the Plan against the\nCity's activities and if there are any liabilities that can be\nassumed, Council can request that the Plan be adopted with said\nliabilities in mind; otherwise, Council can move forward.\nMayor Johnson inquired how the creation of 15,000 supportive\nhousing units in Alameda County would work in relation to the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) allocation.\nThe City Attorney responded the issue would be analyzed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether ABAG has endorsed the Plan.\nMs. Gardener responded ABAG has not been requested to endorse the\nPlan; stated the adoption of the Plan does not commit a City to any\nspecific action and is only the adoption of the Plan's broadened\ngoals.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a lot of time went into putting the\nPlan together; Council needs to know whether the ABAG allotment and\n15,000 units overlap; details need to be analyzed; the Plan needs\nto come back to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the City already has some goals in\nplace and certain obligations; staff needs to review how the goals\nand obligations dovetail together.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of receiving the report with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 13, "text": "further direction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Tam requested clarification on the\nmotion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council would receive the existing\ndraft Plan and review the City's current commitment and how it\noverlays with the Plan; the Plan would come back to Council for\nreview and consideration of whether or not to adopt the Plan.\nVice Mayor Tam reiterated that the motion was to receive the report\nthis evening with direction for staff to evaluate strategies and\ndetermine whether or not endorsement and adoption should be\nrecommended to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated Council agrees with the goals; more\ninformation is needed on the Plan.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she would like to affirm what the\nCity can do and the City's goals even if there are things in the\nPlan that need further research or that cannot be answered when the\nmatter comes back; she does not want the Plan to drop off the face\nof the earth even if the plans do not dovetail; the issue is\nimportant; the City has made commitments to the homeless population\nin the past.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she is comfortable with endorsing the Plan;\nshe reviewed the strategies.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(07-182) - Public Hearing to consider a recommendation to adopt FY\n2007-08 Community Development Block Grant Action Plan and authorize\nthe City Manager to negotiate and execute related documents,\nagreements and modifications\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave a brief Power Point\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nHenry Villareal, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB unanimously supports the\npublic service funding as recommended; the SSHRB supports staff's\nrecommendation to restore funding to BANANAS first; the American\nRed Cross Alameda Service Center should be considered next if\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 14, "text": "additional funding is available.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB for recommendations; stated Council\nappreciates the SSHRB's time and effort.\n(07-183) Recommendation to consider initiation of a Zoning\nAmendment in the area generally bounded by Madison Street to the\nnorth, Washington Street to the south, Fernside Drive to the east\nand Peach Street to the west.\nThe Planning and Building Director gave a brief report.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the rezoning is the first step in\nthe process, to which the Planning and Building Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there would be Public Hearings.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the proposal would be reviewed and an analysis would be\nperformed; meetings would be held; it is important to know what the\nneighbors want to achieve before a new, overlay district is\ncreated; the matter would go to the Planning Board before coming to\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the proposed rezoning is the\nfirst in the City, to which the Planning and Building Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what was the height limit in the R-1\nZone, to which the Planning and Building Director responded thirty\nfeet.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a Public Hearing was held regarding\nremodeled property in the area; inquired how the permit process\nwould be affected and whether said property conforms with the\ngeneral provisions of what is being proposed tonight.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the owners are in the\nprocess of doing some redesign work and are waiting for tonight's\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 15, "text": "outcome technically, the owners would not have to wait, but they\nare trying to work with the neighborhood.\nEunice Wong, Alameda, stated two-story homes are out of character\nfor the neighborhood; the homes are very close together limited\nsunlight is an issue.\nAnn Quintell, Alameda, stated she would like to clarify that Peach\nStreet is not included.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the houses fronting on Peach Street\nare included.\nMs. Quintell responded in the negative; stated 82 houses are\ninvolved, not 118.\nDavid McCarver, Alameda, stated the goal is to protect the\nneighborhood; encouraged Council to support the zoning amendment.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed zoning amendment could be a model\nfor other neighborhoods and is fair to current owners and\nprospective buyers; everyone would be under the same rules buyers\nwould know that there are additional restrictions prior to buying a\nhome.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the proposed zoning amendment\nwould enhance the capabilities of the Planning Department and\nPlanning Board; he looks forward to initiating the rezoning.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of initiating the rezoning\nwith special development standards with the amendment not to\ninclude Peach Street.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that the rezoning\namendment should move forward; she is comforted that there will be\nmore public discussion opportunities within the neighborhood,\nPlanning Department, and Planning Board; she is concerned with the\ntwenty-foot height limit because she is not sure whether a two-\nstory gabled roof would be possible under the twenty-foot limit;\nstaff should review the matter carefully.\nVice Mayor Tam concurred with Councilmember Gilmore stated that\nshe has concerns with including only part of Peach Street ; she\nwould like to understand that the line is not an arbitrary\nboundary.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 16, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated the houses that front Peach Street\nhave a different orientation to the sun; kitchens would have\nblocked sunlight if a two-story home was build next to the houses\nthat are perpendicular on Madison Street, San Jose Avenue, and\nAdams Street; Peach Street homes do not have the same concern.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she was addressing the area beyond Peach\nStreet questioned why Fillmore Avenue and Calhoun Avenue are not\nincluded.\nMayor Johnson stated neighbors initiated the matteri other\nneighborhoods can do the same thing the responsibility needs to be\nplaced on individual neighborhoods.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated the twenty-foot height\nlimit would be part of the analysis; neighboring areas could be\nincluded.\nMayor Johnson stated only neighborhoods that want to be included\nshould be included.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the neighborhood is a track\narea that was developed with a certain style, to which the Planning\nand Building Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Historical Advisory Board might\nwant to review the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the issue is not about preventing\npeople from adding a second story to a single-story house; second\nstories can be added but there are some limitations.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vice\nvote - 5.\n(07-184) - Resolution No. 14084, \"Expressing Support for Full\nFunding for Transit Operations in the State's Fiscal Year 2007-\n2008 Budget. \" Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated more and more\nmoney will be spent on transit systems he did not vote for the\ninfrastructure bond to be used for operation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 17, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the school buses run by that A.C. Transit use\npublic transportation funding.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-185 ) Councilmember Matarrese stated that there have been\ndiscussions regarding how the City and School District could work\ntogether to relieve some of the stress on the School District\nbudget requested reviewing whether or not the School District's\nwaste pick up could be consolidated with Alameda County Industries\n(ACI) ; stated the School District pays approximately $140, 000 per\nyear to Waste Management ; he understands that the consolidation\ncould cost each rate payer an additional twenty-five cents per\nmonth.\nThe City Manager stated an analysis would be conducted and barriers\nidentified.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated all cost saving possibilities should\nbe pursued.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:01 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 17, 2007- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(07-166CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations :\nAll City Bargaining Units.\n( 07-011CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property:\nAPN 74-0905-022-05, 074-0905-027 and 074-0905-028-04 Negotiating\nparties: CIC and Union Pacific Railroad; Under negotiation: Price\nand terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council\nreceived a briefing on the status of labor negotiations from Labor\nNegotiators and provided direction; regarding Real Property, the\nCommission received a briefing from Real Property Negotiators\nregarding potential terms of acquisition and gave direction to\nstaff regarding negotiating parameters.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker, Acting City Clerk\nActing Secretary, Community\nImprovement Commission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -APRIL 17, 2007- - -7:31 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 10:01 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nand Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. .\n]\n( *07-012) Minutes of the Community Improvement Commission meeting\nheld on April 3, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-013) Recommendation to authorize the Executive Director to\nexecute a Consultant Agreement with Harris & Associates in an\namount not to exceed $540,000, to be reimbursed by the Developer\npursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreement, to provide\nEngineering Review and Construction Support Services for the\nAlameda Landing Project. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(07-014)\nUpdate on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking\nStructure Construction Project; and\n(07 - 014A)\nRecommendation to amend the Construction Contract\nwith C. Overaa & Co. for the Civic Center Parking Garage to\nincrease the Scope of Work and approve reduction of the contingency\nbudget.\nThe Redevelopment Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether either alternative would add\nto the length of the Contract.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded that she hopes to stay on\nschedule; stated the marquee and blade sign are custom items; shop\ndrawings would need to be prepared; no additional costs would occur\nwith a week or two delay.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the blade sign and marquee canopy\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 20, "text": "would be difficult to do later, to which the Redevelopment Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nChair Johnson inquired whether other canopies could be added later,\nto which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he likes Alternative #1;\ninquired whether either alternative would have an effect on the\nability to get a tree easement or put a vine trellis/mural on the\nnorthern wall.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded architecturally there would not\nbe a problem.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether there would be a financial\nimpact.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the easement would have to be\nnegotiated with Longs; stated that she does not know whether there\nwould be financial implications.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether vines could be planted\nwithout obtaining an easement.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded external planters become a high\nmaintenance issue because the plants tend to die.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired what would be the option for making\nthe northern side look decent.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded vines take five to seven years\nto grow; stated an alternative would be to architecturally retrofit\nthe northern elevation in the future; additional funding would be\nrequired; another alternative would be to do a temporary vinyl\nmural : a mural could be placed on the three, middle bay windows to\nbreak up the fa\u00e7ade and cover the slope.\nChair Johnson stated hopefully more contingency money would become\navailable and other options could be explored.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired why the marquee canopy price changed\ndrastically.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded that she speculates the\noriginal bid was not correct; stated staff would negotiate to\nreduce the cost if the Commission decides to pursue the option.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the northern elevation treatment changed\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 21, "text": "drastically.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated staff requested that the entire\nfa\u00e7ade be retrofitted with additional concrete, foam, and pipe\nrails.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether any economy would be gained\nby having the same people work on the parking garage marquee who\nare working on the Historic theater marquee.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the matter could be explored\nstated the parking garage signage was competitively bid.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Redevelopment Manager is\ncomfortable with the contingency.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the Construction Management\nTeam is comfortable.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the contingency issue is different for\nthe Historic Theater.\nThe Redevelopment Manager stated the Historic Theater is a design-\nbuild project; the 10% contingency is very prudent.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether street and parking\nconstrictions would last until the end of the project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded that she hopes to alleviate the\nconstrictions prior to the holiday season.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired whether the Park Street Business\nAssociation is comfortable with the timeline.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , responded\nstaff has done an excellent job in keeping the lines of\ncommunication open; stated PSBA understands that the Oak Street\nclosure could last until the end of the project; PSBA Board Members\nand merchants are much less concerned with the northern exposure\nthan signage at this point; the PSBA Board will take a tour of the\ntheater next Wednesday at 8:00 a.m.; stated Council is invited.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval to add Alternative #1 to the\nscope of work.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that the blade sign is distinctive\nand important ; other features can be added at a later date without\ndifficulty if money is available; requested that staff continue to\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n3\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-04-17", "page": 22, "text": "explore good solutions for the northern fa\u00e7ade of the parking\nstructure.\nCommissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\n(07-015) - There being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe Special Meeting at 10:30 p.m. in a moment of silence for the\nVirginia Tech massacre victims and with sympathy to the\nfamilies and community.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing Secretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n4\nApril 17, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-04-17.pdf"}