{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MAY 6, 2008- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council Meeting at 8:08\np.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n08-177) - Proclamation declaring May as Older Americans Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sebastian\nBaldassarre and Jackie Krause representing Mastick Senior Center.\nouncilmember deHaan stated that the Senior Center is rewarding and\ndraws people not just in Alameda but Oakland also; the activities\nkeep people young.\n(08-178) Proclamation declaring May 8 through 18, 2008 as\nAffordable Housing Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sue Sigler,\nAlameda Point Collaborative (APC) Executive Director.\nMs. Sigler stated that affordable housing covers a range of income\nlevels and different needs; Alameda is the home to the largest\nsupportive housing community in the East Bay and provides 25% of\nall the housing for homeless families in Alameda County; thanked\nthe community for continued support.\nCouncilmember deHaan congratulated Ms. Sigler on the breakfast\nfundraiser held two weeks ago; stated the number of individual\nbusinesses supporting the APC is impressive.\n(08 - 179) Proclamation declaring May 11 through 17, 2008 as National\nPolice Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Police\nChief and Police Department staff.\nThe Police Chief thanked Council for the proclamation; stated a\nRegular Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 2, "text": "memorial will be held on May 13 at 10:00 a.m.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 08-180];\nrecommendation to award Community Block Grant-funded Contract\n[paragraph no. 08-185]. and Resolution Supporting Measure H\n[paragraph no. 08-193] were removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]\n(08-180) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on April\n1, 2008 ; and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings held on\nApril 15, 2008.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that minutes of the April 1, 2008\npriority setting discussion be prepared.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the April 15, 2008\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meeting minutes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( *08-181) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,173,985.77\n(*08-182) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report.\nAccepted.\n(*08-183) Recommendation to set June 3, 2008 as the Hearing date to\nconsider collection of delinquent business license fees via\nproperty tax bills. Accepted.\n(*08-184) Recommendation to set June 3, 2008 as the Hearing date to\nconsider collection of delinquent administrative citation fees via\nproperty tax bills. Accepted.\n(08-185 ) Recommendation to award Community Development Block\nGrant-funded - Contract in the amount of $96,400 to AJW Construction,\nInc. and authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $9,640 for\nthe construction of Disabled Accessible Curbs and ramp for 37\nlocations at Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 3, "text": "Counci lmember deHaan inquired whether it would be better to use\nmoney generated by the Alameda Point project for access curbs.\nThe Development Services Director responded knowing when physical\nimprovements will be made is difficult; stated Community\nDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) funding is focused on architectural\nbarrier removal to ensure that people have access to public\nstreets CDBG funding is focused on low and moderate income areas.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is important to keep an account\nof infrastructure improvements being made to land that the City\ndoes not own.\nThe Development Services Director stated the APC has a long-term,\nlegally binding agreement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to ensure that the\nNavy understands what the City is putting into land that the City\ndoes not own.\nSue Sigler, APC Executive Director, stated a number of people use\nwheelchairs for transportation and currently ride in the streets\nbecause sidewalks do not have curb cuts; the project is important\nto certain members of the community.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Council is questioning the funding\nsources, not the need; the Alameda Point project is concerning; the\nmoney [CDBG funds) could be used elsewhere if other funding were\navailable.\nVice Mayor Tam stated there is a clear need for Americans with\nDisabilities Act (ADA) access, particularly in the APC area;\ninquired whether future generated lease revenues could repay the\nCDBG fund so that the money could be used for other services\nstated CDBG funding has been cut at the federal level; limited\nresources are stretched.\nThe Development Services Director responded that she would review\nother opportunities. stated CDBG funding has a cap on support\nservices; opportunities might be available to repay the amount and\nspend the money in other ways.\nMayor Johnson stated the ADA is federal law; inquired whether the\nfederal government should pay to make the property accessible;\nstated lease revenues need to pay for maintenance.\nRegular Meeting\n3\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 4, "text": "West Alameda Neighborhood Improvement Project.\nThe Development Services Director responded approximately $900,000\nhas been pledged to said project.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has needs; the preference is to use\nfederal money on federal property and use City funds for City\nprojects.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Navy should be asked to pay [ for\nimprovements ] and that a ledger on spending be kept.\nBy consensus, the motion carried by the following voice vote - 5.\n(*08-186) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$72,692, including contingencies, to Universal Building Services\nfor janitorial services in City buildings, No. P.W. 01-08-01.\nAccepted.\n(*08-187) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$205,104, including contingencies, to Enviroscapes, Inc. for\nlandscape maintenance of median strips and special areas, No. P.W.\n01-08-02. Accepted.\n(*08-188) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Rittler Park irrigation and field\nrenovation improvements, No. P.W. 11-07-34. Accepted.\n(*08-189) - Resolution No. 14202, \"Preliminarily Approve Annual\nReport Declaring Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of\nAssessments and Providing for Notice of Public Hearing on July 1,\nRegular Meeting\n4\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 5, "text": "2008 - Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2.\"\nAdopted.\n(*08-190) - Resolution No. 14203, \"Preliminarily Approve Annual\nReport Declaring Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of\nAssessments and providing for Notice of Public Hearing on July 1, ,\n2008 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) . \"\nAdopted.\n(*08-191) Resolution No. 14204, \"Directing Staff to Take Necessary\nSteps to Proceed with the Dissolution of the Non-Profit\nCorporation, Alameda Senior Citizens, Inc. Adopted.\n( *08-192) Resolution No. 14205, \"Approving Continued Participation\nin the Alameda County HOME Consortium and Authorizing the City\nManager to Execute the HOME Consortium Cooperative Agreement with\nAlameda County. \" Adopted.\n(08-193) Resolution No. 14206, \"Supporting Measure H, the Alameda\nUnified School District Temporary Emergency Parcel Tax. Adopted.\nDavid Forbes, Alameda Unified School District Board of Education,\nexpressed appreciation to the Police Department in providing\nservices to the School District; stated the State budget is in\nworse condition than on January 10; a parcel tax is the only way\nthe School District can raise revenue; the recommended parcel tax\nequates to $10 per month [per parcel ] for four years; requested\nCouncil support.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the City's quality of life is tied to the\nquality of schools; it is incumbent upon the community to support\nMeasure H; waiting for the State to solve the budget will cause\nstudents to suffer.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated Assemblymember\nSwanson held a hearing on Saturday at Encinal High School; the\nState budget is in bad shape; fixing the budget will take a long\ntime.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted that the Recreation and Park Department\nalso supports the School District.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\n5\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 6, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(08-194) Recommendation to review Charter Amendments for the\nNovember 2008 Ballot.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the subcommittee is recommending a cleanup\npackage and is seeking Council direction on seven substantive\nchanges outlined non-substantive and substantive changes.\nRegarding the seventh substantive amendment to Article 111, Section\n15, the Public Works Director stated both Approach A [providing\nauthority to staff to bind the City] and Approach B [requiring\nratification by Council] would work; the concern with Approach B it\nthat staff might not be able to get the contact to Council in time\nand the $75,000 limit could be exceeded.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired which approach is recommended [by the\nsubcommitteel\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded the concern with Approach B is that\ncontractors may be hesitant to commit resources if there is a\nquestion as to whether Council would ratify the action at the back\nend; stated Approach A would give staff more flexibility; the\nsubcommittee did not have a recommendation, but felt it was\nnecessary to point out the potential disadvantage to Approach B.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether having an ordinance would be better;\nstated there should be more flexibility in the Charter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see any practical\ndifficulty with Approach B; getting Council together would not take\nlong; he cannot see committing to huge job without polling Council.\nMayor Johnson stated a time period is not noted; that she does not\nthink Approach A is the best choice.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there was a lengthy discussion of\nApproach B in the past.\nVice Mayor Tam stated a recommendation has been made not to have a\nspecific provision in the Charter and deal with the matter by\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated that Section 3-15 requires competitive\nbidding; the Charter would need to be amended in order to forego\ncompetitive bidding in an emergency situation.\nRegular Meeting\n6\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the intent is to forego\ncompetitive bidding, not forego Council approval of contracts over\n$75,000, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he prefers Approach B.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether Council wants to include seven\nmeasures separate from the cleanup package on the November ballot\nand include Approach B, to which Council responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that there would be a total of eight\nballot measures; the first measure would include all the non-\nsubstantive cleanup language; the next seven measures would address\nsubstantive issues and would have individual initiatives.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether all seven issues are substantive,\nnot administrative, to which the City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated discussions involved opportunities for\npublic input; the subcommittee suggested scheduling a meeting in\nMay, June, or July, depending upon attendance at the first meeting\nthe subcommittee was concerned there would be voter fatigue if too\nmany measures were on the ballot; the subcommittee, with Council\nconsent, suggested that the City Manager hold a workshop as early\nas January 2009 to address the remaining items; Council could\ndiscuss the issues, get clarification, and devise a plan for public\ndiscussion and input.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the notion should be tested for\nadding three or four additional items as long as there is a public\nworkshop on proposed Charter changes; the proposed revision\nrequiring the appointment of departments heads to be on the advise\nand consent of Council is a modernization and transparency in\ngovernment that provides checks and balances.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she respectfully disagrees;\nCouncilmember Matarrese's suggestion is counter to the foundation\nof the Charter; Alameda does not have a strong Mayor or Council\nform of government; the citizens would be asked to change the way\nthe City is governed.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not see a problem with starting\npublic discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated issues could be brought back to Council\nafter public discussion.\nRegular Meeting\n7\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated the subcommittee identified Charter\nsections that Council wanted to review; other sections of the\nCharter need to be reviewed for consistency.\nMayor Johnson stated that starting public discussion does not hurt;\nshe does not agree with all recommendations, such as Board and\nCommission issues.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that there is a desire to expand the scope of\nthe initial workshop beyond the eight identified issues; the City\nAttorney's office has other priorities requested input on the City\nAttorney office's ability to support and provide framing of the\n2009 issues.\nThe Senior Assistant City Attorney stated every effort would be\nmade; the timeline is tight for a final vote by July 15.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not believe some of the\nissues are difficult.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that consideration needs to be given to\nframing the practicalities of the Mayor's and Councilmembers'\ncompensation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nNovember ballot include the proposed revision requiring the\nappointment of department heads to be on the advice and consent of\nCouncil; he will not support the compensation issue.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he was trying to clean up language\nand past confusion regarding Section 2-11; he would like to have\nthe same language extended to Commissions or to take the section\naway.\nMayor Johnson stated that removing the section might be the\nsolution; State law governs conflict of interest.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter is a clean up issue.\nMayor Johnson concurred.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Section 12-4 (d) reads the Public\nUtilities Board (PUB) shall \"prepare and adopt an annual budget;\nsuggested that the Section be changed to state that the annual\nbudget would be recommended to Council.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the change would be consistent with\nRegular Meeting\n8\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 9, "text": "everything else regarding the PUB.\nThe City Attorney responded that she could not answer tonight.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the issue is a little more involved;\nthat he is concerned about having the City Manager sit on the PUB.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a Charter provision could state that\nthe PUB recommends a budget to Council for approval.\nThe City Attorney responded the matter could be reviewed; stated\nthe question is how soon the Council wants the analysis and whether\nit would fit into the July 15 timeline.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the eight provisions\nrequire other work to get the items on the ballot.\nThe City Attorney responded each ballot measure needs a description\nof five hundred words or less.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have his\nproposed Charter amendment discussed at the workshop.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a decision could be made tonight on\nSec. 2-11; the language could be deleted or made consistent by\nadding Commissions.\nThe City Attorney stated presently there are twenty-six Boards and\nCommissions; only four are Charter Boards the issue is a\nsignificant alteration; language has been drafted already it is\npossible to prepare a description of Councilmember deHaan's intent ;\nthe matter would be a stand alone measure.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the idea is to strike the Section and\ndefer to State law.\nThe Senior Assistant Attorney stated Section 2-11 is more\nrestrictive than State law; the change would be substantive.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said issue would need to be a\nseparate item, to which the Senior Assistant Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's item would\nbe separate item.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated an analysis\nhas not been done to see if changing the Charter in one specific\nRegular Meeting\n9\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 10, "text": "place would require other changes that have to do with the existent\nCity Manager authority.\nMayor Johnson stated people complain to Council regarding aspects\nof City government Council has no control over the matter because\nof the way the Charter is drafted; Council always get the blame\nwhen bad things happen even though Council has no control.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he prefers to think of the\nmatter in terms of accountability.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council needs to have more power to hold\npeople accountable.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the Charter gives the Council authority\nto hold the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk\naccountable.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that he would hold his\ncomments until the public workshops.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed community involvement.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the proposed Article 7 revision should\nbe discussed at the next workshop; Council wants to delete the\nSection 2-11 provision and see what can be done to place the matter\non the 2008 ballot; stated she did not hear any consensus from\nCouncil regarding Board and Commission nominations.\nMayor Johnson stated Board and Commission nominations would create\na rotating Mayor the City has a directly elected Mayor ; she would\nbe opposed to the change; the matter would create a hybrid system\nand a rotating mayor process.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have further\ndiscussion on the matter.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the direction is for the subcommittee to\nreview three or four items in addition to the eight items being\nconsidered for a public workshop.\nMayor Johnson stated the additional items could be discussed at the\nworkshop.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a lot depends on how quickly workshops\nare scheduled and the City Attorney's workload.\nVice Mayor Tam suggested the seven items and cleanup package be\nRegular Meeting\n10\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 11, "text": "discussed at the first workshop; stated the City Attorney's office\nwould have additional time to frame and research Charter\nconsistency of the other items raised and place the items on a\nsubsequent workshop before July 15.\nMayor Johnson, Councilmember Matarrese, and Councilmember deHaan\nconcurred with Vice Mayor Tam's suggestion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she would like to have the\nability to preview Council on what will be presented at the second\nworkshop if there is enough time between the first and second\nworkshop.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there is consensus that the clean up\nlanguage and the other seven items will be on the November ballot.\nVice Mayor Tam noted that the City Manager is having budget\nworkshops in the next few months.\nMayor Johnson stated there might be an Alameda Power and Telecom\nitem for the November 2008 ballot.\nVice Mayor Tam stated it is important that the voters do not get\nfatigued.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would not be surprised if a third\nround of Charter amendments was needed.\n(08-195) Recommendation to consider Call for Review of\nTransportation Commission's decision regarding proposed parking\nrestrictions along Central Avenue to improve traffic circulation\nand emergency access.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the Transportation Commission did not vote to\ndeny the staff recommendation; there were not enough votes to\naccept the recommendation; a motion to deny the staff\nrecommendation was not made.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated the final vote was five to\ntwo not to support the staff recommendation.\nMayor Johnson stated it is important to be clear on what is\nconsensus and what is direction; expressions are not direction.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the environmental document notes that\nthere will be half a block queing in 2020; inquired whether said\nRegular Meeting\n11\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 12, "text": "document considered the historic theater and Cineplex no parking\nzone.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded the analysis focused on\nsignificant criteria; stated traffic signal operations were\nreviewed; parking in front of the theater was not addressed because\nthe issue was not significant.\nThe Police Lieutenant gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Tam stated the traffic study assumed 100% occupancy in\n2005 and found that there was no emergency access impact i the\nTransportation Commission looked at unintended safety consequences\nfrom creating a defacto right-turn lane; Oakland Chinatown has an\nincredible amount of pedestrian traffic; the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission put in bulb-outs; viewing bulb-outs as\nbeing a potential problem seems counter intuitive.\nMayor Johnson stated John Knox-White thinks that Central Avenue is\neffectively being widened, which is unsafe.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated the lane widths would remain exactly\nthe same whether there is metered parking or passenger loading\nzones.\nMayor Johnson stated that Mr. Knox-White stated that the proposed\nright-turn lane creates a possible safety hazard for pedestrians by\nincreasing the number of traffic lanes.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated people go around stopped traffic by\ncrossing bike lanes, which is perfectly legal; the Transportation\nCommission's main focus was on pedestrian and bicycle traffic;\ncongestion is expected in a downtown area and can be a good thing\nfor overall safety because traffic slows down; the concern is that\nemergency vehicle access would be impeded.\nMayor Johnson stated adjustments can be made; bulb-outs would\ncreate a problem.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated there is concern about whether the\nFire Department could make the right turn in the event of an\nemergency at the garage or the 1400 block of Oak Street.\nMayor Johnson stated that merging in and out [of the bike lane ] is\na\nsafety issue; there is no disagreement about the parking on\nCentral Avenue.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the bicycle lane could be crossed three\nRegular Meeting\n12\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 13, "text": "times just to get around the corner.\nThe Police Lieutenant stated enforcement would be increased; the\nvehicle code allows for three circumstances when crossing a bike\nlane : 1) entering and existing the roadway; 2) parking; 3) setting\nup for a turn when within 200 feet of an intersection.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether emergency vehicles would not\nuse any part of the loading zone, to which the Police Lieutenant\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that many intersections have defacto\nturn lanes that work well.\nMayor Johnson stated there are defacto turn lanes everywhere in\nAlameda.\nMichael Krueger, Alameda, stated that he does not oppose parking\nremoval, loading and drop zones, or emergency accessi he is\nconcerned with the creation of the defacto right turn lane; other\nalternatives should be explored, i.e. bulb-outs or an official\nright turn lane; a temporary measure could be taken with the intent\nof a more elegant solution in the future; he would like to see the\ndrop off zone and emergency access in place for the grand opening\n[of the theater]\nMayor Johnson stated that the Police Department believes their\nrecommendation is safer.\nRicardo Pedevilla, Bike Alameda, stated that he is concerned with\nthe loading zone.\nDebbie George, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) stated that\nPSBA supports the staff recommendation.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, stated the Transportation Commission did not\nrecommend anything at its last meeting; that he made a motion to\naccept the staff recommendation, which was seconded by another\nmember. ; the vote was lost five to two; the Transportation\nCommission decided to move on to other business; he does not think\nthat an emergency vehicle would be able to make a right-hand turn\nwith a bulb-out at the corner; suggested that the issue be reviewed\nafter 90 days.\nKyle Conner, Cineplex Developer, stated that he concurs with the\nPolice and Fire Department recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has concerns regarding the\nRegular Meeting\n13\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 14, "text": "right-hand turn lane onto Oak Street; he does not like bulb-outs or\npeople crossing in and out of bike lanes; Oakland's Chinatown has\na\nscramble-type intersection that works very well; he would like to\nhave some type of signal and pedestrian management to ensure that\nthe rules are clear on yielding to pedestrians trying to cross from\nthe Twin Towers side to the Cineplex; the Central Avenue and Oak\nStreet intersection differs from Oak Street and Santa Clara Avenue\nhe likes the recommendation for the loading zone and parking zone ;\ninquired whether the area could be signalized.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded a sign would be installed\nto remind motorists to yield for pedestrians.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a signal would be an\noption.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded pedestrian volumes need to\nbe reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated the [Oakland Chinatown] scramble-type\nintersection works well the City of Oakland had people directing\nand providing information to pedestrians on how to use the\nintersection.\nVice Mayor Tam stated a Metropolitan Transportation Commission\ngrant provides for the construction of bulb-outs at the Chinatown\nintersection to allow for pedestrian safety.\nMayor Johnson stated the streets are very wide in the Chinatown\narea.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer stated that the scramble-type\nintersections are successful if surrounding streets are not close\nto an area such as Park Street.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the concept is to protect the\ncrossing in front of the right-hand turn.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a formal right-hand turn lane could be\nreviewed and should be included in the analysis.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith the following direction: a report be brought back ninety days\nafter the Theater opens; the Police Department is to provide\nenforcement and education; and that any mitigations brought back be\nreviewed by interested parties.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\n14\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 15, "text": "Under discussion, Vice Mayor Tam stated that she will not support\nthe motion; the 2005 traffic and parking study did not identify an\naccess issue; a change is being proposed with the idea of waiting\nto see if the change is problematic; the process seems a little\nbackwards ; she does not understand why the Police and Fire\nDepartments went to the Transportation Commission rather than\nCouncil; there was not enough time to have a full discussion to\nprovide strategic alternatives that would make sense for everyone.\nMayor Johnson stated the Transportation Commission did not make a\nrecommendation that she does not think the Police Department's\nrecommendation should be portrayed as wait and see; the Police\nDepartment is recommending what they believe is safe.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that his motion is not intended to\nbe a wait-and-see approach and includes having Police Department\nrepresentatives at the intersection at peak times to provide\ninformation, direct traffic, and provide enforcement as needed; he\ndoes not support putting in hard construction measures without\nadditional data.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is in favor of the commercial\nand passenger loading zones; she is concerned about the extra red\ncurbing on the corner because of people pulling out around cars\nmaking left turns, the defacto right-turn lane, and pedestrians\ncrossing the street; she would not want to put in hard construction\nmeasures but would be in favor of putting in some planters to\nprevent the defacto right turn lane; she will not support the\nmotion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese, and Mayor\nJohnson - 3. Noes Councilmembers Gilmore and Tam - -2.\n( 08 - 196 ) Public Hearing to consider Green Building Requirements\nfor City building projects, Capital Improvement Projects, and\npublic-private partnerships and adoption of a 75% waste diversion\ngoal;\n( 08-196A) Resolution No. 14207, \"Establishing a Goal of 75%\nReduction of Waste Going to Landfills by 2010 for the City of\nAlameda in Accordance with the Countywide 75% Waste Reduction\nGoal. Adopted; and\n(08-196B) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Chapter XIII (Building and Housing) by Creating a\nCivic Green Building Ordinance. Introduced.\nRegular Meeting\n15\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 16, "text": "The Supervising Planner gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much the Leadership in Energy\nand Environmental Design [LEED] criteria adds to the construction\ncost, to which the Supervising Planner responded the ordinance\nwould mandate the minimum level.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how the $3 million figure was\narrived.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the model ordinance was used from\nStopwaste.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the proposed ordinance would apply\nto the buildings at the former Base, to which the Supervising\nPlanner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether exceptions would be made\nfor housing developments that have a single builder with individual\nhomes that do not exceed the $3 million.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Shensei Gardens Apartments\nand Bayport would fall under the proposed ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the six unit affordable\nhousing project on Buena Vista Avenue would be looked at as a\nwhole.\nThe Supervising Planner responded in the negative; stated each unit\nhas a separate permit.\nIn response to ouncilmember deHaan's inquiry about the 75% waste\ndiversion goal, the Environmental Services Manager stated the 75%\nreduction goal is already in place for the City as a whole.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that the City is not that far from the\nproposed 75% goal.\nThe Environmental Services Manager stated the City's diversion rate\nis 68%.\nMayor Johnson stated some cities have not adopted food waste\nrecycling; Alameda is leading the pack in recycling.\nVice Mayor Tam moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of\nthe ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\n16\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( 08-197) - Recommendation to review options for community\nparticipation in implementation of the Local Action Plan for\nClimate Protection.\nThe Planning and Building Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nBill Smith, Alameda, discussed alternative energy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates and supports the\nproposed committee structure; the partnership provides the broadest\npossible scope for dealing with a community issue, not just a City\nissue; he appreciates having tasks aligned with priorities as well\nas due dates; measuring the progress to the plan will be very\neffective; he would like to see a way to add a more detailed\nbreakdown of the steps that go to accomplishing some of the items\nfrom the City side as well as the public side; he appreciates all\nthe work done by the Task Force and staff.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Assembly Bill 32 requires getting back\nto the 1990 level; inquired what was the level of emissions at that\npoint.\nThe Planner I responded staff was unable to calculate back to 1990\nbecause there is a lack of data from PG&E.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that forming a public-private partnership\nmakes the most sense since the City's facilities are only 3% of the\noverall impact she would like to see if there is a way the broader\ngroup can provide some feedback to the City's Capital Improvement\nProjects to see if there are opportunities to implement some of the\nactions.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated the annual and bi-annual\nbudget review provide a perfect opportunity to start working with\nthe whole group.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates\nthe amount of work done; she is sensing a lot of enthusiasm from\nstaff as well as the former Climate Protection Task Force; the\nenthusiasm will translate well into the larger community.\nRegular Meeting\n17\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese suggested some type of public recognition\nfor the work done by the Task Force; requested that the\npresentation be posted to the website and that future Power Point\npresentations be included in the packet.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( 08-198) - Resolution No. 14208, \"Opposing Proposition 98 and\nSupporting Proposition 99. \" Adopted.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether CalTrans would be able to use\neminent domain to do road improvements under Proposition 98.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded said improvements would be more\ndifficult and costly.\nMayor Johnson stated the City's redevelopment ordinances do not\nallow taking of residential property.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(08 -199) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated C-C Zoning was created for the\nPark Street Business District; a Park Street Business District\nmember was informed that a Use Permit is needed to change an\naddress; the Use Permit would cost $1,800; the business should have\nbeen included as an approved usage, especially on a second floor;\nthere is not enough differentiatior between first floor non-retail\nand second floor usage; requested that staff be directed to work\nwith PSBA to rewrite portions of the C-C Zoning.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is familiar with the issue.\nMr. Ratto stated yoga studios should have been included as\npermitted uses on second floors.\nThe City Manager stated that staff would follow up on the matter.\n(08-200) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, extended Happy Mother's Day\nwishes.\nRegular Meeting\n18\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 19, "text": "(08-201) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed global wealth.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(08-202) Consideration of Water Emergency Transportation Authority\nCommunity Advisory Committee appointment.\nMayor Johnson suggested that Councilmember Gilmore be appointed to\nthe Committee and Councilmember deHaan serve as the alternate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of appointing Councilmember\nGilmore as the City's representative and Councilmember deHaan as\nthe alternate.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(08 -203 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Planning Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Arthur A. Autorino.\n(08-204) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Spring General Assembly\non April 24; discussions included focused, priority development\nareas; speakers explained that change should not be confused with\ngrowth because change does not always equal growth; change can\nhappen without growth; growth should be discussed in terms of\nquality of life, rather than number of businesses; communities\nshould know that change or growth may require trade offs.\n(08-205) Vice Mayor Tam stated that she attended the April 2\nEnvironmental Policy Committee for the League of California Cities;\nthe League is converging on supporting legislation that would\nextend universal waste disposal responsibility to the original\nproducer so that cities and counties are not left with\nresponsibility and costs for disposal alternatives. the diversion\nrate was also discussed; Alameda has an exceptional record; stated\nthat she attended the League of California Cities Legislative\nAction Day on April 16; the budget overshadowed the conversation;\nFinance Director Michael Genest gave his prospective on the grim,\nStatewide budget; Mr. Genest stated that the Vehicle License Fee\ntax cut is the most significant cause of State budget problems ; a\nbalanced budget is not anticipated this summer stated that she\nRegular Meeting\n19\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 20, "text": "attended the April 28 luncheon for Breathe California; Alameda\nPower and Telecom received an award for achieving approximately 70%\nrenewable resources.\n(08-206) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the\nOakland Airport Community Noise Management Forum on April 16; the\ncommunity watchdog group works very hard with the Port of Oakland,\nand specifically the airport, to track flight compliance procedures\nover Alameda, San Leandro, and the rest of the East Bay; a Federal\nExpress pilot gave a presentation regarding the current number of\nold, noisy airplanes and when said planes would be disposed.\n(08-207) Mayor Johnson stated that she attended the Northern\nCalifornia Power Agency Legislative Advocacy Conference; Alameda\nshould be very proud of receiving the Breathe California award;\nSenator Feinstein's or Senator Boxer's office inquired about a\nproposal to have environmental block grants distributed directly to\ncities a letter should be sent supporting the proposal because the\ngrants would help with environmental sustainability initiatives;\nthe issue was discussed at the Mayor's Conference.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated a $2 billion authorization passed\napproximately a year ago; currently, work is being done on\nappropriations of said funds.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 11:26 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\n20\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTE OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MAY 6, 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(08-170) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :\nAll Public Safety Bargaining Units, and Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association.\n(08-171) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.9 Number of cases One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Labor, Council received\nan update on the status of negotiations from Labor Negotiators; no\naction was taken; regarding Legal, Council received a briefing from\nLegal Counsel regarding a matter of potential litigation; no action\nwas taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL, COMMUNITY\nIMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC), , AND HOUSING AUTHORITY\nBOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 6, 2008 - - -7:25 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:58\np.m. Commissioner Torrey led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, Commissioner\nTorrey and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 6.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 6. [ Items so enacted or adopted\nare indicated by asterisk preceding the paragraph number . ]\n( *08-172CC/*08-21CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting held on April 15, 2008.\nApproved.\n( *08-22CIC) Recommendation to approve a fourth amendment to the\nContract with Associated Right of Way Services, Inc. adding $10,000\nto the budget for a total Contract amount of $85,000 to provide\nconsulting services for the Stargell Avenue Extension Project.\nAccepted.\n*08-23CIC) Resolution No. 08-153, \"Authorizing the Executive\nDirector to Convey and Accept Various Easements for the Development\nof Shinsei Gardens Apartments at 401 Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell and\nto Facilitate Utility Infrastructure on Adjacent CIC Property. \"\nAdopted;\n(*08-23A CIC) Resolution No. 08-154, \"Authorizing the Executive\nDirector to Convey by Quitclaim Deed, 2,420 Square Feet at the\nFormer Fleet Industrial Supply Center Site for the Storm Water Pump\nStation to the City of Alameda. Adopted;\n(HABOC) Resolution No. 800, \"Authorizing the Chief Executive\nOfficer to Convey and Accept Various Easements for the Development\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 23, "text": "of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at 401 Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell\nAvenue. \" Adopted; and\n(*08-173CC) - Resolution No. 14200, \"Authorizing Conveyance of Various\nEasements for the Development of Shinsei Gardens Apartments at\nWilver \"Willie\" Stargell Avenue. \" Adopted.\n( *08-174CC/*08-24CIC) Recommendation to approve an Addendum to the\nAlameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project Supplemental\nEnvironmental Impact Report a Letter of Intent regarding property\nexchange by and among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta\nCommunity College District and the CIC; and a Letter of Agreement\nbetween the City of Alameda and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation\nfor dedication of the Stargell Avenue Right-of-Way;\n(*08-174A CC) Resolution No. 14201, \"Approving a Right-of-Way\nContract Between the City of Alameda and the Peralta Community\nCollege District for the Stargell Extension Project. Adopted; and\n(*08-08-24A - CIC) Resolution No. 08-155, \"Approving Letter of Intent\nby and Among Palmtree Acquisition Corporation, Peralta Community\nCollege District, and the CIC and Authorizing the CIC to Accept the\nDeed to Property. \" Adopted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(08-175CC/08-25 CIC) Recommendation to approve modifications to the\nCity of Alameda Down Payment Assistance Program to include\nrefinance mortgage recovery loans for qualified existing\nhomeowners.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nlouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the\nbad loans that led to the current crisis are being addressed\nputting the safety net in place is important.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(08-176CC/08-2 CIC) Recommendation to adopt Loan Guidelines for\nDownpayment Assistance Loan Program and Below Market Rate Ownership\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2008-05-06", "page": 24, "text": "Housing.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report indicated that\nthe City allowed a very limited number of adjustable, but\namortizing loans that could not go negative for the Bayport\nproject; inquired whether there have been any poor experiences with\nthe adjustable loans.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he appreciates\nstaff brining the item forward; there is no action at the State or\nfederal level.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson stated the fact that the City\nhas not had any foreclosures is indicative of the rational, high\nquality way the City has addressed the issue.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:08 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission, and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\nMay 6, 2008", "path": "CityCouncil/2008-05-06.pdf"}