{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 15, 2008 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:43\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\n(08-019) - Mayor Johnson announced that Resolutions of Appointment\n[paragraph no. 08-020] would be addressed first.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-020) Resolution No. 14174, \"Appointing Lamant Carter as a\nMember of the Youth Commission. Adopted;\n(\n08-020A) Resolution No. 14175, \"Appointing Vincent Margado as\na\nMember of the Youth Commission. \" Adopted; and\n( 08-020B) Resolution No. 14176, \"Appointing Bhaani Singh as a\nMember of the Youth Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented certificates of\nappointment to Youth Commission Members.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess to hold the Special Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting at 7:45 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 8:08 p.m.\n***\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 08-021], -\nResolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application to\nCalTrans for $45,000 [paragraph no. 08-026], and Resolution\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 2, "text": "Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an Application to CalTrans\nfor $96,000 [paragraph no. 08-027] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember 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(08-021) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on January 2, 2008. Approved.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have a task\nsummary of the Golf Course action.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan was requesting\nthat staff bring back a summary of direction, to which\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*08-022) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,577,645.63.\n( *08-023) Recommendation to approve Amendment No. 6 to the Alameda\nCounty Emergency Dispatch Consortium Mutual Aid Agreement to Assign\nthe Rights and Obligations of Lawrence Livermore National Security,\nLLC to the Alameda County Fire Department. Accepted.\n(*08-024) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to enter\ninto a Consultant Agreement in the amount of $200,000, including\ncontingencies, with ARUP for the Estuary Crossing Feasibility\nStudy. Accepted.\n(*08-025) Recommendation to approve a Cooperative Agreement between\nthe City of Alameda and AC Transit for formalizing collaboration on\nprojects of mutual interest and authorize the City Manager to enter\ninto such an agreement. Accepted.\n(08-026) Resolution No. 14177, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nSubmit an Application to CalTrans for $45,000 in Transit Technical\nPlanning Assistance Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008/2009 to\nConduct a Citywide Transportation Systems Management/Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 3, "text": "Demand Management Plan, Commit $5,830 in Measure B Funds as the\nLocal Match, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All\nNecessary Documents to Implement the Project. \" Adopted.\nNote: The item was addressed together with Resolution Authorizing\nthe City Manager to Submit an Application to CalTrans for $96,000\n[paragraph no. 08-027].\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she supports securing the grants; stated\nthe Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand\nManagement (TSM/TDM) addresses a concerted effort and identifies\nthe City's goal to reduce congestion and peak hour traffic through\nthe Posey Tube by reducing single occupancy vehicles; including the\npark-and-ride concept would be ideal; inquired how the issue could\nbe pursued through the two grants.\nThe Public Works Director responded the park-and ride lot and\ntransit hub, which would be discussed later, would fit in both\ncategories, has a clear connection between TSM and TDM, but would\nfit better with the Long-Range Transit Plan; stated AC Transit\nlooks for multiple transit lines as well as intermodal plans for a\ntrue transit hub.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff is requesting Council to\nauthorize the City Manager to submit an application and would move\nforward with a fairly aggressive community outreach plan if grants\nwere received; further inquired at which point Council would be in\na position to direct staff to look at the park-and-ride project\nwithin the Long-Range Transit Plan.\nThe Public Works Director responded hopefully the Long-Range\nTransit Plan would be completed by the end of 2009; stated funds\ncould become available late October 2008; the intent is to have\npublic comment and solicit input through public meetings and then\nthrough the Transportation Commission; the final draft would come\nto Council.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council would have the ability to\ndirect that the project be added into the Long-Range Transit Plan\nat some point, but not at this stage.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff would apply for the\ncurrent Congestion Management Agency (CMA) and Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission (MTC) project; stated the first step is\nto see whether there is support at the regional level so that\nregional funds could be accessed; the next step would be to solicit\npublic comment.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated a transit hub has been discussed for the\nAtlantic Avenue, Ralph Appezzato Parkway, and Webster Street area;\ninquired whether said concept is in the Long-Range Transit Plan.\nThe Public Works Director responded discussions related to the\nCollege of Alameda and may be in the Long-Range Transit Plan.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:18 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Council Meeting at 8:23 p.m.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of resolutions [Authorizing the City\nManager to Submit an Application to CalTrans for $45,000, paragraph\nno. 08-026 and Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an\nApplication to CalTrans for $96,000, paragraph no. 08-027]. .\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08 3-027 - ) Resolution No. 14178, \"Authorizing the City Manager to\nSubmit an Application to CalTrans for $96,000 in Community-Based\nTransportation Planning Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2008-2009 to\nConduct an Update to the Long Range Transit Plan, Commit $24,000 in\nMeasure B Funds as the Local Match, and Authorize the City Manager\nto Execute All Necessary Documents to Implement the Project.\nAdopted.\nNote: See Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Submit an\nApplication to CalTrans for $45,000 [paragraph no. 08-026] for\ndiscussion and motion.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-028) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's denial of a Certificate of Approval (CA06-0031) of\ndemolition for 433 Taylor Avenue; and adoption of related\nresolution.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the appeal is coming to Council without\nan application to rebuild.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant wants to have\nassurance that the structure can be demolished before moving\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 5, "text": "forward with a design.\nMayor Johnson stated that she cannot imagine that rebuilding a\nporch, changing windows, removing and restoring the brickwork, and\nreplacing the fireplace would cost $537,000.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that the bid was a\ncomprehensive cost and included exterior and interior restoration.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether adding another 2,000 square feet\nwould make the home livable to current standards.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded that the Applicant would\nremodel and arrange interior floor space to address current needs.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like further information on the\n$537,000 bid; a structure on Minturn Street was rebuilt after a\nfire and looks beautiful there seems to be a significant\ndifference between what would be approved and what the owners would\nlike to build; she does not want to see another monster house in an\narea where there are small homes; questioned why the Applicant\nwould want to demolish the structure if she is not willing to\nrebuild something acceptable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that one issue is the determination\nby the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) that the house should not be\ndemolished; the second issue is what the house would be replaced\nwith if demolished; old does not mean historical; he does not want\nto have a vacant lot because what can be built there cannot be\ndecided.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the existing structure could be livable\nwith a few modifications; the situation has three different\nscenarios.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the HAB is faced with\ndetermining whether or not the structure is one that should be\ndemolished because it lacks historical integrity and does not have\nany relationship to past persons or events; Council can make the\ndecision to grant the appeal if Council cannot find that the\nstructure can return a financial value; the structure needs to tie\ninto the neighborhood.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the City\nAttorney interpret whether or not Council makes decisions based on\nguaranteeing someone a financial return; he is not sure whether\nsaid criteria is applied when looking at historic significance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 6, "text": "The City Attorney stated the HAB considers two things when\nconsidering whether a structure with some historic benefit should\nbe demolished: 1) whether the structure has historic value, and 2)\nwhether refusing to grant the demolition permit versus restoring\nthe structure would provide economic return to the property owner;\nCouncil would make the same findings suggested that Council seek\nfurther information from the Applicant for determination.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the HAB had no problem with demolishing\nthe structure as long as the new structure had some redeeming value\nthat would be conducive to the rest of the neighborhood.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the structure was determined to be\nhistorical.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded no redeeming architectural\nqualities or historical relationship to a historic event or person\nwere found.\nMayor Johnson stated the HAB denied the demolition permit; she does\nnot think there is enough information to make a finding tonight ;\nshe does not think reconstruction costs are clear inquired whether\nthe Planning Department has information on how many square feet\nwould be reconstructed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Department has\nthe same information that is included in the packet.\nMayor Johnson stated that doubling the size of the structure is not\nrestoring the structure.\nThe Applicant stated the main roof beam is 1\" X 4\"; the entire roof\nhas to be removed to bring the roof up to code; the walls and\nfoundation need to support the new roof; demolition costs would be\nless; working with the existing structure is expensive.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant would not get an\neconomic return by demolishing and reconstructing the house.\nThe Applicant responded the structure needs to be torn down to\nbring the structure up to code; stated a demolition permit would be\nneeded one way or another.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage on the\nlast application.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 7, "text": "The Applicant responded the existing house is approximately 1,600\nsquare feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the 1,600 square feet includes the\ngarage.\nThe Applicant responded in the negative; stated the updated plans\nare approximately 3,200 square feet.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the lot percentage.\nThe Applicant responded the lot percentage is within the 40% lot\ncoverage.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the house does not resemble a 1906\nstructure; a lot of change has taken place; homes are\ndisproportionate in size near Lincoln School; efforts have been\nmade to keep scale in neighborhoods.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the demolition permit can be\ncoupled to major design review, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson stated that there is not enough information to make a\ndecision; the bid needs to be clearer.\nThe City Attorney stated that in order for the Applicant to support\nher assertion that there would not be an economic return on the\nproperty she would need to show that the cost of remodeling the\nexisting house, bringing the house up to code, making alternations\nto bring the house back to the original historical value, and\nputting the house on the market would exceed the value of the lot\nwith the refurbished house.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether said scenario is assuming\nthat the house is historical.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the HAB\ncould have refused to grant the request if the structure had\nhistorical value; stated the HAB could grant the request to\ndemolish the structure if the Applicant was able to show an\ninsufficient economical return on the investment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the HAB findings note \"Even though\nthe residence does not show identifying marks, it should be saved\nbecause it completes the cultural fabric of the neighborhood.\nHouses that are eclectic surround the residence and they are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 8, "text": "historic. This house has retained some historical characteristics\nand could be remodeled and returned to is original Colonial Revival\nstyle\"; the same logic can apply to any place in the City the\nhouse is nondescript because of alterations; the finding does not\npoint to historic significance for the house; he cannot see how the\nappeal cannot be overturned.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated certain design requirements would be\nnecessary inquired whether compatibility with the rest of the\nneighborhood would be required.\nThe City Attorney responded there would be an opportunity later on\nto pass on the design review should the Applicant come forward with\na design to rebuild the house; stated the matter cannot be\nconditioned tonight.\nMayor Johnson stated the Applicant should not assume that she can\nrebuild to the desired size if the appeal is overturned; size and\nscale within the neighborhood is very important; bad mistakes\nshould not be repeated.\nThe Applicant questioned why she would be denied when similar\nstructures are being built.\nMayor Johnson suggested that the Applicant provide a list of said\nstructures.\nThe Applicant stated that she is not exceeding the height of the\nexisting structure; the footprint is not much bigger than the\nexisting house; there do not seem to be any direct guidelines.\nMayor Johnson stated design guidelines include criteria of\ncompatibility with the neighborhood and size and scale.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a process is in place that has a set\nof defined code requirements for setbacks, height, and design\nguidelines.\nMayor Johnson stated guidelines have not been appropriately applied\nin the past.\nCouncilmember deHaan cautioned staff to ensure that proper\nguidelines are applied; stated the area is zoned for duplexes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the demolition permit cannot be tied\nto what or what may not be built on the lot; the HAB finding is too\nbroad and there would be no demolition anywhere in the City if\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 9, "text": "applied across the board; requested that HAB review and tighten up\nstandards the structure does not qualify as a historical structure\nbased upon the finding and pictorial evidence.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution allowing the\nApplicant to proceed with demolition.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese directed the Applicant\nand staff to go through the guidelines so that Council would not\nneed to hear a design review appeal.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-029) Recommendation to accept report on the Government\nAccounting Standards Board Statement No. 45 on accounting for other\npost employment benefits.\nJohn Bartel with Bartel Associates, LLC gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not understand why numbers are\npresented when CalPERS will not project out more than two years.\nMr. Bartel stated that an actuarial evaluation requires that he\nmake a best guess on healthcare costs.\nMayor Johnson stated that 7.75% does not seem like a realistic\nnumber.\nMr. Bartel inquired whether the percentage seems too high, to which\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the return has been over the last ten\nyears, to which Mr. Bartel responded 9%.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the returns have been over the last\nthree years.\nMr. Bartel responded 12% to 13%; stated returns were 18% at the end\nof 2007. the short history is extremely good; the 7.75% is treated\nwith conservatism; he believes 7.75% is an appropriate assumption.\nMayor Johnson stated that everyone hopes that the federal\ngovernment will do something about medical inflation; inquired what\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 10, "text": "would be the result on the calculations by assuming a 4.5% medical\ninflation rate after 10 years.\nMr. Bartel responded healthcare becomes 100% of the Gross Domestic\nProduct (GDP) if healthcare continues to grow in the high single or\nlow double digits and general inflation is 3% the scenario of\ndoing nothing means having natural market forces controlling\nhealthcare costs which results in private sector entities dropping\nhealthcare coverage the end result would be 50% of the population\nuninsured something would need to be done; the actuarial accrued\nliability might be 30% higher if the grade is increased from 4.5%\nto 6% accounting standards suggest that an evaluation every two\nyears for agencies that have more than 200 participants.\nMayor Johnson stated a two-year evaluation is fine, but the chart\nshould not go out as far as it does based on a 4.5% medical\ninflation number; assuming that the federal government will adopt a\nnational healthcare plan is very optimistic.\nMr. Bartel stated that he is reluctant to project beyond a ten year\nperiod in terms of actual dollars; he cannot predict what will\nhappen ten years from now.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Pay-As-You-Go could be much\nmore expensive than pre-funding with a fund that starts having\na\nreturn from investments.\nMr. Bartel stated Pay-As-You-Go is similar to how social security\nis funded today; a check is written when the payment is due; social\nsecurity has a trust fund; the trust fund will run out in\napproximately 15 years; tax dollars will not be sufficient to pay\nfor expected benefits; social security is funded by a quasi pre-\nfunding; CalPERS and private sector retirement systems require that\nmoney be set aside so that there is money in a trust and the money\nwill be there as people retire; the City has entered into a\ncontract with CalPERS to pre-fund benefits.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many municipalities have addressed the\nissue.\nMr. Bartel stated that he has performed approximately 150\nevaluations; he predicted that four out of five of his clients\nwould not do any pre-funding four or five years ago; he was wrong;\nthe majority of his clients do not have the budget ability to pay\nthe full Annual Required Contribution (ARC) immediately; he is\nconvinced that most of his clients will either phase into paying\nthe full ARC or adopt a standard of putting something aside so that\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 11, "text": "money can be set aside if the budget turns around.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether phasing-in will be the most\nlikely method.\nMr. Bartel responded very few agencies pay the ARC right awayi\nstated a few agencies started setting money aside, allocating\ninternal service funds, and transferring money into an irrevocable\ntrust; the majority of agencies will either phase into paying the\nfull ARC or intend to phase into the full ARC over a five or ten\nyear period; new strategies include Pay-As-You-Go plus normal\ncosts; normal costs are the value of benefits being earned during\nthe year by active employees.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether bond rating might become the\nreal factor in pushing municipalities.\nMr. Bartel responded that he is not a bond rating expert; stated he\nhad two clients that set money aside in an internal service fund;\nboth were going through a bond rating for a capital improvement\nproject; both expressed a strong interest in pre-funding, paying\nthe full ARC, and moving the money into a irrevocable trust; both\nagencies had an upgrade in bond rating because they were addressing\nthe unfounded liability; a bond rating might not change but may be\ndowngraded if not addressed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether anyone has ever borrowed to\npay.\nMr. Bartel responded two agencies in the State have done so; stated\nPeralta College is one; CalPERS premiums can be 50% one year and 5%\nthe next volatility in actuarial liability is created if changes\nhappen when an evaluation is done; he is reluctant to advise\nagencies to bond for the entire amount ; he would be cautious about\npaying off the entire unfunded liability.\nMayor Johnson stated that it is important for people to look at the\ncharts on page 3 and 5 of the report; the cheapest option is Pay-\nAs-You-Go the ten year payout projections increase from $1,861\nmillion for 2007-2008 to $4,342 million for 2016-1017; the better\noptions are more expensive; the cost comes out of the General Fund.\nThe City Manager stated that the cost comes out of the General Fund\nfor the most part.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the General Fund for the current\nyear, to which the City Manager responded $85 million.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 12, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated healthcare benefits are only one part of\npension costs; it is important for people to know how costs impact\nthe General Fund and City services.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City Manager and Finance\nDirector will come back with recommendations to which the City\nManager responded recommendations will be presented during budget\ndiscussions.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether guidelines are requested from\nCouncil at this time, to which the City Manager responded not at\nthis time.\nMayor Johnson requested that the report and Power Point\npresentation be posted on the website.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that all options should be presented\nduring discussions\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the discretionary portion of the\nGeneral Fund, to which the Finance Director responded she does not\nhave the number.\nThe Finance Director stated that $58 million pays for salaries,\nbenefits, and pensions.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated pension and retiree benefits need to\nbe discussed; knowing the overall number would be useful.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked Mr. Bartel for the clear\npresentation; stated that the charts depict where the impacts are\nand the seriousness of the situation.\nMayor Johnson requested that the charts on Page 13 and 14 be\nchanged so as to not assume a 4.5% medical inflation after ten\nyears.\nMr. Bartel stated the logic of going beyond ten years is not to\nattach precision to the numbers.\nMayor Johnson stated that numbers should be provided for both the\nmiracle case and worst case.\nMr. Bartel stated that the worst case could be double digit\ninflation in the CalPERS premiums for the next thirty years; other\nthings might happen before then he would like to talk with staff\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 13, "text": "regarding different scenarios.\n(08-030) Recommendation to approve the proposed New Bus Stop\nLocations and the proposed future rerouting of the AC Transit Bus\nLine 63 within the City of Alameda.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer introduced AC Transit\nrepresentatives and Transportation Commission members.\nThe Program Specialist II gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the bus line goes to Oakland at two\ndifferent spots; inquired what is the overall run time for the\nroute.\nTony Bruzzone, AC Transit Manager of Service and Operation\nPlanning, responded fifty minutes each wayi stated the bus line\ngoes past the 12th Street BART Station and terminates at 11 th Street\nand Martin Luther King, Jr. Boulevard.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many minutes the bus line is in\nAlameda, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded thirty-seven minutes.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired where is the vast majority of\nridership, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded ridership is all in\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor Tam noted for the record that Council received an email\nfrom Claudia Davidson; stated Ms. Davidson was advocating for\nalternative bus stops on Willow Street closer to the medical\nfacilities; stated that she responded to Ms. Davidson and noted\nthat Council's desire is to implement its transit policies with\nminimal interference with the neighborhood and it is important to\nbalance the desires of the residents who want to park directly in\nfront on their homes with those that need to take the bus and walk\nfurther. encouraged Ms. Davidson to clarify her alternative.\nOpponents (Not in favor of the staff recommendations) : Liz Cleves,\nAlameda, (submitted handout) ; Diane Voss, Alameda; Jack Boeger,\nAlameda Ed Gersich, Alameda; Claudia Davison, Alameda, (submitted\nhandout) ; George Wales, Alameda; and Chris Placencia, Alameda.\nProponents (In favor of the staff recommendations) : Ursula Apel,\nAlameda, (statement read by Susan Decker) ; Will Matievich, Alameda;\nSusan Decker, Alameda; and Michael John Torrey, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how much time would be saved if\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 14, "text": "the bus looped around at the first possible moment after 12th Street\nand Broadway\nMr. Bruzzone responded said scenarios cannot be done; stated\nparking the bus is a problem in downtown Oakland; the current route\nis the best for now.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is not suggesting parking\nthe bus at the end of the line; the end of the line could become\nthe middle where the bus could be parked [at the ferry terminal] .\nMr. Bruzzone stated that passengers would sit through a ten-minute\nbreak.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated passengers have to sit through a\nten-minute break somewhere.\nMr. Bruzzone stated that passengers get off the bus in Oakland; the\npassenger experience is different.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the idea be considered\nstated that he would like to review the option of taking the bus\ndown to Shoreline Drive between Willow and Grand Streets; inquired\nhow much more time would be added, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded\ntwo minutes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that adding an additional bus would\nbe another suggestion; inquired whether the request is realistic.\nMr. Bruzzone responded the matter could be considered; stated an\nadditional bus would cost approximately $350,000 per year; AC\nTransit is running out of buses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Line 63 serves Alameda the most\nand serves intra-City traffic better than any other line; enhancing\nthe line should be reviewed; a bus should be allocated on Shoreline\nDrive between Grand and Willow Streets, even if temporarily; the\ncost could be offset with increased ridership and would resolve the\nOtis Drive issue; reducing speed and managing traffic around Lum\nSchool is important; most of the problems at the crosswalk are\ncaused by cars; a bus stop would further complicate automobile\nissues.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the purpose of turning off\nShoreline Drive onto Grand Street.\nMr. Bruzzone responded December 2003 had extreme cutbacks; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 15, "text": "there was a $20 million deficit; Alameda had four cross island\nbuses; Alameda had to give up one of the lines; residents desired\nto have a route that went across the entire Island; AC Transit is\nnot so desperate now; that matter can be reviewed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Transportation Commission\nrecommended other places.\nMr. Bruzzone responded the Transportation Commission thought the\nbus could be used better someplace else; stated a huge schedule\nanalysis was done on the 51 bus line; two afternoon buses were\nadded to the schedule; a run time analysis showed that the buses\nwere running early; two buses were wasted.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated multiple devises have been installed at\nthe Lum School crossing and getting across is still a chore; adding\nto the confusion does not make sense; buses travel at approximately\n35 miles per hour with children present; safety needs to be first\nand ridership second; two light controlled intersections would be\nlost by going down Shoreline Drive to Eighth Street Wood School\nstudents are the vast majority of Grand Street and Otis Drive bus\nriders; Whitehall Place is almost the same distance to the hospital\nas a secondary stop proposed in front of Willow Street. more\ntraffic congestion would be created; run time was not addressed\nbefore, only adding two stops; Alameda Point is concerning.\nThe Program Specialist II stated currently Encinal Avenue does not\nhave a route; Santa Clara Avenue would be the nearest parallel\nroute if the route extended along Shoreline Drive to Westline\nDrive.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated 500 people signed a petition not to\nhave a bus stop at Grand Street and Otis Drive; the rule is to run\nbuses where there is density.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the scenario would work if the\nbus stop dropped at Shoreline Drive and traveled up Grand Street,\nran by Encinal High School during school hours and cut out the\nMonarch Street end.\nThe Program Specialist II responded staff estimated that the\nEncinal High School and Alameda Point adjustments would total four\nminutes and bring the bus back on schedule; adding the Shoreline\nDrive component would put the schedule two minutes behind.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how many minutes would be saved by\nending the line at the Alameda Ferry Terminal.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 16, "text": "Mr. Bruzzone responded he would not recommend said scenario; stated\npeople would be waiting on the bus during a layover; the idea is\nnot practical.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the bus runs in a circle; one\nof the defined ends is the Fruitvale Bart Station.\nMr. Bruzzone stated that no one is on the bus; people hate being\ndelayed in route; drivers would have an issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is willing to give up the\ntwo minutes to get down to Shoreline Drive and look into adding\nanother bus to fill the gap.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether notice has been provided to\nShoreline Drive residents, to which the Program Specialist II\nresponded barricades were posted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the proposed route changes take four\nminutes off the current run time and brings the route back on\nschedule; two minutes would be added by going down Shoreline Drive\nand making the other changes.\nMr. Bruzzone stated that the matter could come back if proposed\nchanges do not work.\nThe Program Specialist II stated the Transportation Commission\nrecommended improving the Shoreline Drive bus stops before moving\nto Shoreline Drive; said bus stops are on sand.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $162,000 needed for bus\nstop improvements along Shoreline Drive and is not in the budget,\nto which the Program Specialist II responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much money was budgeted for Otis\nDrive, to which the Program Specialist II responded $50,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether money for the bus stop\nconcrete pads could be taken from different congestion management\nfunds.\nMayor Johnson responded staff could explore said idea.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated perhaps the Transportation Commission\ndid not push for the Shoreline Drive stop because the City did not\nhave $162,00 for improvements; AC Transit is willing to explore\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 17, "text": "rerouting the bus stop down Shoreline Drive; resources need to be\nfound to fix the bus stop pads; rerouting the bus stops is not fair\nuntil said resources are found.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of 1) changing the route at\nMonarch Street; 2) making the recommended changes associated with\nEncinal High School; and 3) making the change that routes the bus\ndown Shoreline Drive pending the availability of funds for required\nbus stop upgrades along Shoreline Drive on the beach side of the\nstreet.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired where the bus stop would be on\nWillow Avenue, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded the bus\nstop would stay where it is.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Whitehall Place bus stop needs to\nbe modified somehow; inquired whether the W line generates more\nridership, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded that he did not know.\nMayor Johnson stated that real efforts have been made to make bus\nstops accessible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to see the bus line\nrerouted down Shoreline Drive and later look at alternatives to go\ndown Westline Drive; he would not like to modify Alameda Point but\nallow the modification on Pacific Avenue to go forward jogging at\nkey periods of time to pick up Encinal High School students; he\nwould like to leave Alameda Point the way it is.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion\nincludes keeping schedules the same all the time or changing times\ndepending on Encinal High School.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded the motion includes the Encinal\nHigh School change.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated the Transportation Commission\nstruggled with the four-minute issue and recommended that the\nmatter be reviewed as an interim measure.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is willing to keep Alameda\nPoint the way it is but wants to drop down to Shoreline Drive\nbecause of the apartments and taking the Lum School bus stop issue\nout of the equation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that everything that has been said tonight\nrevolves around trying to improve and locate bus stops in the most\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 18, "text": "optimum position so that there is a viable public transit system;\nridership would improve and become a success if AC Transit is able\nto improve run times; the Transportation Commission has gone\nthrough an exhaustive process.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of staff recommendations 1 through 6\nand added direction for staff to look at reducing the number of\nlanes from four to three on Otis Drive; the matter could be part of\na long-term study to look at opportunities to reduce congestion on\nOtis Drive by having more transit choices whether the choices be\nbicycles, cars, or a more viable transit system.\nThe motion was rescinded because a preceding motion was\noutstanding.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded Councilmember Matarrese's motion with\nmodifications.\nMayor Johnson stated that AC Transit is working with the City on\nreviewing routes the Transportation Commission did not have said\nopportunity.\nRobb Ratto, Transportation Commission Member, stated the\nTransportation Commission was dealing with the reality of the\nbudget ; the Transportation Commission's desire was to move the bus\nline to Shoreline Drive; staff advised the Commission that there\nwas no budget to improve the Shoreline Drive bus stop pads\neveryone agreed to cut the Monarch Street loop; six riders per day\ndoes not make for an affective transit program, especially when two\nminutes is taken out of the schedule; an additional bus could be\nused elsewhere for more transit riders.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the bus could run on time if the\nMonarch Street loop is not cut, to which Mr. Bruzzone responded in\nthe negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated route times were not previously\ndiscussed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is not in support of\napproving recommendations 1 through 6 because #4 is a reluctant\nrecommendation; the Transportation Commission really wants #5; one\nscenario is to leave Monarch Street and make all the other changes\nincluding #5; making the service more reliable would necessitate\nmoving Monarch Street to Lexington Street.\nMayor Johnson stated that it is more important to have reliable\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 19, "text": "service than to have the Monarch Street portion; the bus service\nneeds to be on time.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the bus line brings retail segments\ntogether.\nCouncilmember Matarrese amended the motion to move approval of\nrecommendations 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion Councilmember Matarrese directed staff to find the\nbalance of money needed to satisfy Shoreline Drive bus stops that\nare on sand.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese wanted to\ninclude addressing the issue that the Transportation Commission\nraised regarding traffic calming speed reduction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said issue could be a separate\nmotion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the motion is to have AC Transit\nreroute from Monarch Street to Lexington Street, provide service at\nEncinal High School during peak periods does not include #4, which\nis implementing new bus stops on Otis Drive, the bus will run down\nOtis Drive as usual; staff is directed to find money for Shoreline\nDrive bus stop improvements; the Whitehall Place and Willow Street\nbus stops will continue to be a priority.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the matter still has to go to AC\nTransit for evaluation, regardless of Council's decision.\nMr. Bruzzone responded the evaluation would be a formality stated\nthe earliest date for a possible route change is June.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor Tam - 1.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the proposal is not fiscally\nresponsible.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that staff has been directed to find\nthe money for bus stop improvements; Council may not like any of\nthe proposals; the bus would not run along Shoreline Drive if\nimprovements cannot be made; a decision would need to be made to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 20, "text": "revisit the Otis Drive bus stop.\nMayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated staff\nwould bring the matter back to Council options need to be weighed.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted $50,000 is available [for bus stop\nimprovements)\nThe City Manager stated a different appropriation would be needed\nfor additional funds; other projects would be impacted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff would be able to apply\nfor bus stop improvement grants, to which the Supervising Civil\nEngineer responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the bus line is Alameda's line and\nis a priority; Council acted responsibly tonight an unfunded\nmandate was not given; issues were resolved regarding better run\ntimes; a policy decision has been made to forestall stops on Otis\nDrive; concerns have been voiced regarding traffic conditions at\nLum School; Otis Drive is a very fast area and is unsafe to cross;\nhe hopes that Council can give direction to take the next step at\nlooking at the intersection, particularly at Lum School ; other\nprojects can be reviewed on a priority basis.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated that staff is going through a\nTransportation Master Plan review process and is developing a\nCitywide commuter model that will help give some idea of the\nimpacts.\nMayor Johnson thanked AC Transit representatives for attending the\nmeeting.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the time and\neffort expended by AC Transit.\n* * *\n(08 - 031) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past 12:00 midnight.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(08-032) Resolution No. 14180, \"Authorizing Implementation of\nParking Restrictions at Bus Stops on State Route 61 to Provide\nCurbside Access for Buses. \" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 21, "text": "The Supervising Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is an obligation to\nnotify and post in the area.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded that everyone within 300\nfeet of the bus stop was notified; stated notices were posted on\nbarricades.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback has been\nreceived.\nThe Program Specialist II responded feedback was received from two\nresidents near the intersection of Central Avenue and Bay Street i\nboth residents were concerned about on-street parking availability;\n17 to 23 on-street parking spaces are available within half a\nblock.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated evening parking is not impacted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated people could get ticketed if they are\nnot gone by 7:00 a.m.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Encinal Avenue and Park Avenue\nbus stop is included, to which the Program Specialist II responded\nin the negative.\nDavid Edwards, Alameda, stated a bus stop is located at the Weber\nStreet bi-section and Ninth Street through Central Avenue; there is\na fire plug at the Weber Street bus stop the proposed metered\nparking space is in front of his house; having a red zone that is\ntwo car lengths or more would be an the advantage of having a bus\nstop at the intersection of Ninth Street and Central Avenue.\nwestbound traffic would be easier to see [at the intersection] ; the\nnext best spot would be across the intersection which has a\ndriveway on either side.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Transportation Commission\nreviewed the matter, to which the Program Specialist II responded\nin the negative.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated restrictions should be placed\nat all bus stops.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore\n[regarding the 7:00 a.m. matter ]; stated that he does not know how\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 22, "text": "to get around the issue.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether people park at the bus stops\nbetween 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a . m.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded feedback did not indicate\nany substantial concern other than the previously mentioned Bay\nStreet location; stated review showed ample on-street parking.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested clarification on Mr. Edward's\nsituation.\nThe Program Specialist II stated plans are to relocate the bus\nstop; the bus stop would be moved up 50 feet.\nMayor Johnson requested that staff explore the matter with Mr.\nEdwards.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS NON-AGENDA\n(08-033) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated that the property owner\nadjacent to his home is in default of deed restrictions for a\nlandscape installation and maintenance agreement.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(08-034) Consideration of developing a transit hub on the land\nbetween Marina Village Drive and the entrance to the Posey Tube in\norder to address congestion in the Tubes.\nThe Supervising Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the $1.3 million estimate would be\nfor the parking lot, to which the Supervising engineer responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the proposed area is the only\navailable land for a park-and-ride on the West End; he would like\nto have the matter moved up on the priority list $1.3 is a flea\nbite of money considering all of the congestion management money\nspent to do freeway repair and maintenance that does not relieve\ncongestion on I-880 and I-580; one way to reduce tube congestion is\nto get people out of single occupancy vehicles.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 23, "text": "The Supervising Engineer stated that funding could be pursued once\nthe project becomes part of the 2035 Transportation Plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to start working\nwith the State to deed the land to the City for nothing.\nMayor Johnson stated that she recalls a transit hub may not be the\nbest place for a park-and-ride.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that nothing prevents having\nmultiple hubs; the West End does not have other places for a ride\nshare lot.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the staff report notes that the\ndevelopment of a sewer master plan and design to upgrade existing\ndrainage improvements would need to be deferred.\nThe Supervising Engineer stated staff time would be impacted; the\nbicycle master plan update could be delayed also.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that said delays are not good trade-\noffs.\nThe City Manager stated applying for grant funding can be done now.\nMayor Johnson stated transit hub locations should be reviewed; the\nproposed area may be okay for a park-and-ride but not a transit\nhub; staff can apply for a park-and-ride grant and review the\ntransit hub issue.\nThe Supervising Engineer stated that staff is reviewing the idea of\nadding a queue jump lane at Webster Street as part of the Tinker\nAvenue Extension Project; the park-and-ride lot could tie into the\nPosey Tube entrance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted that staff provided drawings that\nshow configuration and aerial views.\nThe City Manager stated that staff would update Council on the\ngrant application.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(\n08-035 ) Mayor Johnson stated the information that she requested\nunder item 5-C should be posted to the website and should clarify\nthat the General Fund non-contracted portion is used to pay for all\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 24, "text": "General Fund department expenses; the General Fund does not have\nextra money; General Fund department expenses will be cut to pay\nfor increasing pension and retirement costs; the question is where\ncuts will be made.\n(08-036) Mayor Johnson stated that some public entities are\ndistributing agenda packs via flash drives; inquired whether the\noption should be considered for Boards and Commissions; stated the\nCMA is thinking about using flash drives; she would get more\ninformation on the matter.\n(08-037) Councilmember deHaan inquired when the budget review\nprocess would start.\nThe City Manager responded internally, the internal process has\nstarted; stated a timeline will be provided to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether feedback has been provided\nregarding the reserve.\nThe City Manager responded information would be provided.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff has any idea regarding\nprojected cuts at the State level.\nThe City Manager responded the Finance Director has done an\nanalysis; stated impacts are more immediate for the School District\nthan the City.\n(08-038) Councilmember deHaan requested interpretation of the\nCharter provision regarding the use of recreation land owned by the\nCity that was raised during the Golf Course discussion at the\nJanuary 2, 2008 City Council Meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 12:26 a.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\n24\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 25, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 15, 2008 - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:10 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(08-016) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9; Number of cases One\n(08-017) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units.\n(08-018) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95 ; Claimant : James\nRitchey Agency Claimed Against: City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Legal, Council received\na briefing from Legal Counsel regarding a threat of litigation; no\naction was taken; regarding Labor, Council received a briefing from\nits Labor Negotiators on the status of labor negotiations within\npublic safety; regarding Workers' Compensation, Council provided\nsettlement authority to resolve the claim.\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\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 26, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 15, 2008- - -7:25 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nSPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY\n(08-03)\nUpdate on the Alameda Theater, Cineplex, and Parking\nStructure Project.\nThe Redevelopment gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner Matarrese inquired whether the interior restoration\nwas damaged due to leaks, to which the Redevelopment Manager\nresponded in the negative.\nChair Johnson stated that she is glad the leaks were discovered now\nand not after the Theater opens.\nCommissioner deHaan stated restoration and parking garage costs are\n$16 million; inquired whether the overall project cost totals $37\nmillion, to which the Redevelopment Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCommissioner deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCommissioner 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(\n*08-04) - Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting of January 2, 2008. Approved.\n( *08-05) Recommendation to approve a Contract with City Design\nCollective in the amount of $74,925 for the North of Lincoln\nStrategic Plan for the Park Street Business District. Accepted.\n(*08-06) Resolution No. 08-152, \"Authorizing the Substitution of a\nSurety Bond for the Cash Funded Reserve Account Relating to the\nCommission's $17,510,000 Community Improvement Commission of the\nCity of Alameda Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (Business and\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n1\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 27, "text": "Waterfront Improvement Area) Series 2003C, and the Commission's\n$1,025,000 Taxable Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Area) , Series 2003D, Approving the Form and\nAuthorizing and Directing Execution of a Guaranty Agreement\nRelating to Such Surety Bond and Authorizing and Directing Certain\nActions with Respect Thereto. Adopted.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(08-07) - Recommendation to adopt the update to the Economic\nDevelopment Strategic Plan.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that surveys indicate that Alameda Point\ntop priorities include 1) Recreation amenities; 2) public access\nto the waterfront; and 3) job creations through commercial\ndevelopment; affordable housing and historical preservation ranked\nlower.\nThe Development Services Director stated specific plan goals\naddress the need to ensure that the development includes multi-\nmodal, transit-oriented-development concepts a good mix of\ncommercial, industrial and retail uses developing a core center ;\npublic access issues; and public benefits.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how valid was the study's\ndemographics.\nThe Development Services Director responded the survey was\nstatistically valid; voting and non-voting residents were surveyed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that a concerning factor has always been\nwhere people work; other surveys indicate that 42% of residents\nwork in San Francisco; the current survey indicates that only 5%\nwork in San Francisco; the developer needs to understand the\npercentage because of transportation corridor issues.\nChair Johnson stated that the Public Transit Committee performed a\nsurvey which showed a high number of South Bay commuters.\nThe Development Services Director stated that she would like to do\na survey comparison.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the background information is good ;\nthe Economic Development Commission [EDC] did a great job; he\nsupports strategy one [create industrial and office jobs ] ; the\nfollow up should connection what is going on with Harbor Bay\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\n2\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-01-15", "page": 28, "text": "Industrial Park, what is not going on with the Marina Village\ncommercial area, and what is going on with planning Alameda Point;\njob replacement was one of the mandates of the former Base closure;\n14,000 civilian jobs were lost when the Navy closed.\nCommissioner deHaan stated 5,500 civilian jobs were lost. the\nmilitary totaled approximately 11,000.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he would like to see a road map\noutlining what will be done; Alameda Point is important as a place\nto generate jobs as well as Marina Village and the Harbor Bay\nindustrial area; there is a good handle on retail; an important\nobjective is to have jobs that reduce the number of commuters\nleaving the Island; directed that the EDC flush out the how to of\naccomplishing what strategy one.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that Harbor Bay has had great successi a\nplateau has been reached on retail expressed kudos to the EDC .\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith direction to emphasize resources on implementing strategy one.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion with the caveat that a\nplaza is well overdue in the Park Street area.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:08 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\n3\nJanuary 15, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-01-15.pdf"}