{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MARCH 17, 2009- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:52 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09 - 106) Mayor Johnson announced that the proclamations [paragraph\nnos. . 09-107 and 19-108] and resolution of appointment [paragraph\nno. 09 -109 - ] would be heard before the Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-107) Proclamation declaring March 16-21 as Women's Military\nHistory Week.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Mildred Nolan.\nMs. Nolan thanked Council for the proclamation; stated that a\ncelebration will take place on Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00\np.m. at the Twin Towers United Methodist Church.\n(09-108) Proclamation declaring March 22-28 as Boys' and Girls'\nClub Week.\nSpeaker Michael John Torrey, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Boys' and\nGirls' Club representatives Former Police Chief Burney Matthews and\nMarc Morales.\nFormer Police Chief Matthews thanked the Council for the\nproclamation.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(09 -109) - Resolution No. 14313, \"Appointing Ardella Dailey as a\nMember of the Social Services Human Relations Board. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 2, "text": "unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Dailey with\na certificate of appointment.\nMs. Dailey thanked Council for the opportunity to serve the\ncommunity.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 8:02 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular Meeting at 8:23 p.m.\n***\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Supporting a Maritime\nAdministration Small Shipyard Grant [paragraph no. 09-114] and\nFinal Passage of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAdding Article XX [paragraph no. 09-116] were pulled from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember 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(*09 - 110 ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on March 3, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-111) - Ratified bills in the amount of $3,253,243.09.\n(*09-112) Recommendation to authorize the Acting City Manager to\nexecute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Alameda\nand the Alameda County Fire Department to establish a Cooperative\nAgreement to administer a Department of Homeland Security\nAssistance to Firefighters Grant and allocate matching grant funds.\nAccepted.\n(*09-113) - Recommendatior to award a Consultant Agreement in the\namount of $77,936, including contingency, to Kier & Wright Civil\nEngineers & Surveyors, Inc. for survey and mapping services.\nAccepted.\n(09-114) - Resolution No. 14314, \"Supporting a Maritime\nAdministration Small Shipyard Grant to Bay Ship & Yacht Co. to\nEstablish a Job Training Center and Program. \" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 3, "text": "Speaker : Robert L. Henn, Bay Ship & Yacht Co. (submitted handout) .\nMayor Johnson stated that Bay Ship & Yacht Co. is a very valuable\nemployer; the City appreciates Bay Ship & Yacht Co.'s role in the\ncommunity.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that Bay Ship & Yacht Co.'s landlord is\nJohn Berry; inquired how much Bay Ship & Yacht Co. pays in annual\nrent.\nMr. Henn responded $615,000 per year; stated additional amounts are\npaid for unshared parcels.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Development\nServices would be involved in the grant application and training.\nThe Development Services Director responded Development Services\nwould assist in getting applications together.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(\n*09-115 - ) Resolution No. 14315, \"Authorizing the Filing of an\nApplication for Federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of\n2009 Funding for Repair and Resurfacing of Fernside Boulevard and\nCentral Avenue, and Stating the Assurance to Complete the Project. \"\nAdopted.\n(09-116) Ordinance No. 2989, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding Article XX (Earthquake Hazard Reduction in Existing Soft-\nStory Residential Buildings) to Chapter XIII (Building and Housing)\nand Amending Subsection 30-7.12 (Reduction in Parking Requirements\nfor Existing Facilities) of Section 30-7 (Off-Street Parking and\nLoading Space Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development\nRegulations) By Adding Subsection 30-7.12(c) to Allow for\nReduction in Parking Requirements for Seismic Retrofit. \" Finally\npassed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff is still looking into\nfunding streams.\nThe Building Official responded $100,000 would be set aside for\nassisting property owners who have 51% low to moderate occupancy\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 4, "text": "and would also be available for historic structures.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff is reviewing Berkeley's\nprogram to help property owners finance solar panels.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated assisting property owners is important\nbecause the current market is unstable.\nMayor Johnson stated Berkeley's solar panel model is good because\nloans are from a bond; the gas shut off value requirement is a good\npart of the initial phase; inquired whether the initial phase would\nnot require retrofitting but would develop a list.\nThe Building Official responded the first phase would develop a\nlist and requires property owners to complete an engineering study\nand outline fixes within eighteen months of notification; stated a\ngas shut off value would need to be installed within 60 days of\nnotification.\nMayor Johnson stated the Association of Realtors supported the\nfirst reading of the ordinance; a lot of outreach has been done.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter is a public safety issue;\nthe first step would identify buildings and require an engineering\nstudy and installation of a gas shut off value.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-117) Ordinance No. 2990, \"Amending Alameda Municipal Code\nSubsection 30-4.1 (R-1, One-Family Residence Districts) of Section\n30. 4 (District Uses and Regulations) of Article I (Zoning Districts\nand Regulations) Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) By Deleting\nSubsection 30-4.1 in Its Entirety and Replacing with a New\nSubsection 30-4.1 to Allow Ministerial Approval of Secondary Units\non\nSites\nHaving a Single-family Dwelling and Meeting Specific\nStandards. Finally passed.\n(*09-118) Ordinance No. 2991, \"Amending Various Sections of the\nAlameda Municipal Code Contained in Chapter II Article I Pertaining\nto City Council Meetings, Chapter II Article II Pertaining to the\nHistorical Advisory Board, and Amending Ordinance No. 1082 As\nAmended by Ordinance No. 2497 Pertaining to an Existing Pension\nFund. \" Finally passed.\n(*09-119) - Public Hearing to consider a subdivision of ownership to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 5, "text": "condominium form for two detached single-family dwellings on one\nsite at 3211 and 3215 Fernside Boulevard. The site is located\nwithin an R-2, two family residence zoning district; and\n(*09-119A) - Resolution No. 14316, \"Approving Tentative Parcel Map\nNo. 9787 for the Purpose of Establishing a Subdivision of Ownership\nto Condominium Form for Two Detached Single-Family Dwellings on One\nSite Located at 3211 & 3215 Fernside Boulevard. Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-120) Receive a Progress Report on financing the City's Other\nPost Employment Benefit [OPEB] obligations.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether all options outlined at the\nFebruary 7, 2009 Financial Management Workshop would be explored.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated\ninformation is still outstanding on financing OPEB; stated pension\nobligation bonds do not apply to debt limit for cities, but there\nis a grey nebulous area on whether benefit obligation bonds could\nfall under the State constitutional debt limit; more debt scenarios\nwould be done.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated other cities are going through a similar\nsituation; inquired whether staff has investigated how other cities\nare funding the debt.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded three or four cities are\nreviewing funding pension obligations; stated cities will be\npursuing the matter more aggressively in order to meet liabilities.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City will have many examples to review\nbecause cities are mandated to take care of the indebtedness; time\nis not on the City's side; options need to be understood.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested clarification on the difference\nbetween a benefit and pension obligation bond.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the 1079 and 1082 Plans\nfinancing would be pension bonds; stated OPEB obligations are other\npost employment benefits such as medical, retirement, and health\ncare; attorneys are still gray on whether or not an OPEB bond would\nfall under the City's limits in terms of debt based on the State\nConstitution; the City does not have to decide on the construction\nof the financing scenarios until the last minute; currently, the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 6, "text": "capital appreciation bond is the most beneficial.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the debt, to which the Interim\nFinance Director responded $75. 4 million.\n(09-121) - Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 14317, \"Amending\nMaster Fee Resolution No. 12191 to Revise Fees Charged for Appeals\nto the Planning Board and to the City Council.\" Adopted.\nThe Planning and Building Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff time could be limited; stated\nmost work should be done by the appellant and applicant.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded staff discussed\nstreamlining the process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the single-family\nresidence cap would be $1,500, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the cap for multiple\nunits.\nThe Planning and Building Official responded a $5,000 cap would be\nmore appropriate for a duplex or mixed-use project.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether multiple unit buildings\nwould be considered commercial; to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the chart outlining the outcome and types\nof appeals shows a 6% recovery; 94% of the appeals were subsidized;\ninquired whether the subsidy came from the General Fund.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the subsidy came from\ndepartment revenues.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether permit and application fees are\nused to offset costs, to which the Planning and Building Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the summary shows that over a third of the\nappeals are for major projects and are split down the middle\nbetween applicants and non-applicants; that he is concerned that\nthe average appeal fee [Fiscal Year 2006-2007 through Fiscal Year\n2008-2009] cost $1,759.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of resolution) : Christopher Buckley, Alameda;\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) ( submitted\nhandout) .\nOpponent (Not in favor of resolution) : Ani Dimusheva, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether time and material costs are\ncollected, to which the Planning and Building Director responded in\nthe negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated raising the appeal fee would not be\ntoo much of a burden because a lot of appeals involve groups of\npeople; a hardship would involve one individual, which is rare.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a Councilmember would have the\ndiscretion to Call for Review a decision if an individual was\nwronged; inquired whether other cities charge time and materials to\nwhoever wins the appeal, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded that staff did not come across said situation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there could be constraints\nor a legal down side.\nThe City Attorney responded that she does not think there would be\nany due process issues; stated that she would not like the City to\neat costs.\nThe Acting City Manager stated collection would be an issue.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated it is important that boards and\ncommissions hear items at the necessary level; sometimes boards and\ncommissions are not allowed to review the entire project.\nMayor Johnson stated the process needs to be streamlined to ensure\nthat two different boards are not doing the same job; an applicant\ncould be faced with two different appeals.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated time and materials were charged from\n2003 to 2006; inquired whether collection was successful; that she\nis not sure whether she wants to go back to charging time and\nmaterials if collection was a hassle or unsuccessful.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated there was one collection\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 8, "text": "problem when she first started.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be a problem in\ncollecting time and material fees, to which the Planning and\nBuilding Director responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has a hard time understanding why\nadditional staff time would be needed if staff already made a\nrecommendation.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded staff tries to get the\nappellant and applicant together to reach an agreement.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated sometimes the appellant and applicant\ndo not see eye to eye.\nMayor Johnson stated there should not be any reason for a change in\nthe staff recommendation; the process is prolonged by getting\noverly involved in the appeal.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated that she would be glad to\nreceive some policy direction; staff makes every effort to try and\nresolve any issues.\nMayor Johnson stated people might take the first process more\nseriously if the appeal is not dragged out for six months by trying\nto work with everyone.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated sometimes staff changes its\nrecommendation.\nMayor Johnson stated the Fernside Boulevard case was handled badly.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated there have been times when the Planning\nBoard was not a full body and could not come to a final conclusion\nso the matter was brought to Council; the matter should have been\nhandled by the Planning Board; other cities charge a flat rate,\nwhich is better; that he is bothered that an individual is only\nable to appeal if they live within a 300 foot radius of the\nproject.\nMayor Johnson stated how appeals are handled needs to change;\nappeals are delayed and staff time is wasted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated some of the costs involve staff\nbringing the parties together to reach an agreement; inquired what\nsaid cost would be versus providing information in a public\ninformation request.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 9, "text": "The Planning and Building Director responded staff does not keep\ntrack of public information request costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the meter starts to run when an\nappeal is filed; inquired whether most of the time is spent on\nstaff trying to get parties together.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded that the matter would\ndepend on the case; stated administrative staff needs to prepare\nnotices, mailing, etc.\nMayor Johnson stated the appellant should pay administrative costs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated if the appeal is granted, an\napplicant or the City eats the costs; an appellant should be\nresponsible for costs if the appeal does not have grounds and is\nnot granted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not agree; that she is\ntrying to balance some of the issues; the next agenda item\naddresses cost recovery for emergency services for false alarms;\nfull recovery costs would not be charged for inspections; cities\nprovide certain services, which is part of the cost of doing\nbusiness; it is appropriate to look at a fee structure that would\nincrease the flat rate beyond $100 but not to completely recover\nthe cost of time and materials; that she would favor a hybrid\napproach similar to San Leandro and the Park Street Business\nAssociation proposed in terms of time and materials; San Leandro\ncharges $278 per applicant, in addition to time and materials for\ndirect costs.\nMayor Johnson stated charging more up front is good; actual costs,\nsuch as mailings, should be recovered; a delicate balance is needed\nbetween not making appeals too expensive versus having a system\nthat allows frivolous appeals.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated an applicant pays more than a non-\napplicant in San Leandro and Hayward; he would prefer a flat rate\nof $300 for both sides.\nMayor Johnson stated that she likes the idea of a flat fee if\nsomeone wins and a reasonable cap if someone loses; that she does\nnot see the reason for spending more than a superficial amount of\nstaff time on a residential appeal; people need to know that they\nare on their own once a board or commission makes a decision.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated there may be an instance where someone\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 10, "text": "wants to add something to a residential property and design review\nis approved by staff; neighbors might not like the project for\nvarious reasons that were not addressed at the design review level\nbecause the Code is only checked; the matter could become a whole\nother issue such as blocking sun light.\nMayor Johnson stated the appeal process has become too lax; a\nbetter process needs to be developed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated twenty-two appeals have been filed within\ntwo years; the process does not seem to be abused.\nMayor Johnson stated the Fernside Boulevard process took a year and\na half; there was an amendment to the appeal months after the\noriginal appeal was filed; the process needs to be better defined;\ntrying to accommodate everyone ends up being unfair.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated incidentals could be cleaned up before\ncoming to Council charging $10,000 for an appeal is a disgrace;\nan appeal process is democracy in motion and is right for the\ncommunity; placing all appeals into one pot does not work.\nMayor Johnson concurred that commercial and residential should have\ndifferent fees; all commercial should not be lumped into the same\ncategory.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she does not like tying the fee\nto whether someone wins or loses; proposed a $350 residential flat\nfee with time and materials cap of $500, for a total of $850; a\ncommercial flat fee of $350 with time and materials cap of $2,500,\nfor a total of $2,850; inquired whether individual hardship could\nbe considered.\nMayor Johnson proposed lowering the residential flat fee to $200 or\n$250 with a time and materials cap of $500; concurred with\nCouncilmember Gilmore's proposed commercial fee structure.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution with the\nfollowing amended fees Residential : $250 flat fee with time and\nmaterials cap of $500; Commercial : $350 flat fee with time and\nmaterials cap of $2,500.\nThe Planning and Building Director inquired whether a single family\nor duplex would be considered residential, to which Councilmember\nMatarrese responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson requested that policy recommendations be brought back\nregarding the appeal process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 11, "text": "Counci lmember Gilmore requested that a report be provided regarding\nhow fees are working out within six months to a year.\nThe Planning and Building Director inquired whether the report\ncould be provided within a year, to which Councilmember Gilmore\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether staff would still need to use\nsome other fees to off set costs if the proposed fees do not\nrecover costs, to which the Planning and Building Director\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson suggested that staff time be limited.\nThe Planning and Building Director stated that she welcomes said\ndirection; the process would be streamlined; boards and commissions\nwould be informed.\nMayor Johnson stated parties need to be informed also; parties need\nto try and mediate the matter before coming to a board or\ncommission.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan stated the track record shows\nthat one-third of the appeals were withdrawn; that he would support\na flat rate.\nMayor Johnson requested that Council be notified earlier if there\nare issues.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes : Louncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 4. Noes: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1.\n(09-122) Public Hearing to consider introduction of an Ordinance\nAmending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 24-10 (Cost\nRecovery for Recurring Calls for Service to Respond to and/or Abate\nProperties Due to Specified Conditions or Owner Neglect) to Chapter\nXXIV (Public Health) Introduced; and\n(09-122A) Resolution No. 14318, \"Amending Master Fee Resolution No.\n12191 to Revise and Add Various New Fees. Adopted.\nThe Fire Marshall gave brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would be considered structural leakage.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 12, "text": "The Fire Marshall responded a cracked foundation or accumulated\nbasement water.\nMayor Johnson stated \"water intrusion\" would be a better term.\nThe City Attorney responded some types of water intrusion have\nnothing to do with owner neglect and would be the City's\nresponsibility.\nMayor Johnson stated said circumstance would be an emergency and\nwould not be charged.\nThe City Attorney stated the ordinance should not include anything\nwhere the City's action could potentially be considered inverse\ncondemnation.\nMayor Johnson inquired why basement flooding would be limited to\nmalfunctioning sump pumps.\nThe City Attorney responded the list [24-10.3 Liability for\nemergency response costs] represents reoccurring calls; stated the\nhomeowner neglect standard is as the catchall\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a leaking washing machine at a\nbusiness would be covered, to which the Fire Marshall responded in\nthe affirmative.\nThe City Attorney responded said situation would be covered under\nthe property owner neglect clause.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether businesses are required to have a\nsign stating to call a specific number in case of an emergency if\nthere is no manager on site.\nThe Fire Marshall responded that he is not aware of any\nrequirement, but he has seen said signs in laundromats.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the requirement could be done by\nordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded enforcement would be difficult; stated\nthe requirement could be a condition of approval for a new\nbusiness.\nThe Fire Marshall stated the requirement could be addressed in the\nFire Code which requires an emergency plan.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated a merchant could experience flooding due\nto an adjacent property; inquired how charges would be billed.\nThe City Attorney responded the property owner creating the public\nnuisance would be charged if proof could be established.\nCouncilmember Matarrese questioned whether people should be calling\n911 for non-life threatening situations.\nMayor Johnson stated an education process is needed for what is and\nis not an appropriate call.\nThe Fire Marshall stated the plan is to place articles in the\nnewspaper in addition to business district outreach.\nMayor Johnson stated a lot of fire calls are a result of smoking\nfood on stoves.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a fire is a fire; people panic and\nthrow water on oil; serious injuries can occur; the Fire Department\nshould not be called for a flooding issue unless someone is in\nphysical danger.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a neighbor thought there was some\nhazardous materials floating in the lagoon; the neighbor called\n911; although the floating material turned out to be pollen, she\nwould not like to create a situation where people are not\ncomfortable calling for necessary help; the Fire Department has two\ntrucks with ladders; there is only one high rise building in\nAlameda.\nThe Fire Marshall stated Alameda has many hulti-story buildings; a\nhigh rise is considered any building over seventy-five feet tall.\nMayor Johnson stated City Hall is fifty-five feet tall.\nThe Fire Marshall stated the longest ladder carried by aerial\ntrucks is thirty-five feet; the seventy-five foot ladder is needed\nfor multi-story buildings.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Ruby Bridges Elementary School had a\ncouple of [false] fire alarms; the Fire Department responded Ruby\nBridges is now being charged.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think that the School\nDistrict should be charged; the School District needs to fix the\nalarms. ; School District buildings are public buildings and need to\nbe protected; that she would be fine with exempting the School\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 14, "text": "District but alarms need to be kept in good working order.\nThe Fire Marshall stated the School District's maintenance division\nwas not aware of all of the false alarms some of the fees have\nbeen waived for Ruby Bridges; other schools have chronic alarm\nproblems; the State mandates fire inspections for school districts;\nan invoice is sent and is charged against lease payments that the\nCity makes to the School District. the City is able to recoup costs\nfor repeated false alarms; false alarm fees are much less expensive\nthan reoccurring calls for service.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to inform the School District\nthat there would not be a charge if alarms are maintained and there\nis communication with staff.\nThe City Attorney stated the false alarm ordinance would need to be\namended to exempt the School District and is not on the agenda\ntonight.\nMayor Johnson stated tonight's agenda is dealing with the use of\nemergency services in non-emergency situations; repeated false\nalarms from the School District are not emergency situations.\nThe Fire Marshall stated that staff is working with the School\nDistrict.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the hospital could be included\n[in the exemption].\nVice Mayor deHaan stated senior citizens have certain needs\ninquired who is the tiebreaker in the decision making, to which the\nFire Marshall responded he is.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated individual concerns need to be heard.\nMayor Johnson stated the education process is important; staff\nneeds to go to Mastick Senior Center and business and homeowner\nassociations; a lot of residential calls come from apartment\nstructures; plumbing leaks should be directed to the building\nmanager instead of the Fire Department.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated education is important; part of the\ntraining needs to address how to turn off the water.\nMayor Johnson people need to be informed that a plumber should be\ncalled if they chose not to learn how to turn off their water;\npeople need to know what type of situations are non-emergency and\nwhen calling 911 is a necessity.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance and\nadoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-123) Consideration of Mayor's appointments to the Rent Review\nAdvisory Committee.\nMayor Johnson appointed Henry Hernandez and Thuy T. Nguyen.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nmeeting at 10:16 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MARCH 17, 2009- - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 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(09-101) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee organizations :\nAll Bargaining Units.\n(09-102) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: One.\n(09-103) Conference with Labor Negotiator (54957.6) ; Agency\nNegotiator : City Attorney Name City Manager.\n(09-104) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding All Bargaining Units,\nthe City Council received a briefing from its Labor Negotiators; no\naction was taken; regarding Anticipated Litigation, the City\nCouncil received a briefing; regarding City Manager, the City\nCouncil voted unanimously in favor of a settlement agreement with\nformer City Manager, Debra Kurita; although the City Council and\nDebra shared many goals for the City, we differ in the manner in\nwhich to achieve them; the decision to take the City's management\nin a new direction was an amicable and mutual decision for Debra\nand the Council, and we wish her well in her future professional\nendeavors.\n**\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:40 p.m. to convene the Regular\nCity Council Meeting and reconvened the Special Meeting at 10:20\np.m.\n***\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Public Employment, the\nCity Council discussed the appointment of an interim City Manager ;\nno action was taken.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 17, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 12:00 a.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\n2\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -MARCH 17, 2009- -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 8:02 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(09-12 - CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission\nMeeting held on March 3, 2009.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(09 - 105 CC ) Recommendation to approve a $3 million loan from the\nCity Sewer Fund to the Community Improvement Commission for\nmatching funds for construction of the Webster Street/Wilver\n\"Willie\" Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26;\nand\n(09-13 - CIC) Recommendation to approve funding and award a Contract\nin the amount of $6,923,869, including contingencies, to Top Grade\nConstruction for the Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell Avenue\nIntersection Project, No. P.W. 10-08-26.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson requested clarification on the State\nTransportation Improvement Program (STIP) funding timeline.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated funding was\nallocated in September ; the City has six months to award a\nContract; after the Contract is awarded, the first invoice needs to\nbe processed within the following six months; construction needs to\ncommence shortly after the award of the Contract; overall\nconstruction needs to be completed in one year.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 19, "text": "Mayor/Chair Johnson inquired what would happen if timelines are not\nmet, to which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager\nresponded the $4 million would be forfeited.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether staff is watching to see\nwhether the project would qualify for stimulus funding, to which\nthe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired 1) whether the City\nwould be paid back the $3 million in Sewer Fund money if stimulus\nfunding were received; 2) what would happen if Catellus does not\nmove forward; and 3) whether the City would only receive $2 million\nback from Catellus or whether the $2 million is the down payment on\nthe obligation.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the City\nwould receive $2.2 million for the Stargell Avenue project if\nCatellus moved forward with Target only; stated Catellus would be\n100% responsible for the local match if the rest of the project\nmoves forward; that she is not sure whether the City would be able\nto be reimbursed with stimulus funding.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether the City\ncould lose $3 million, which is the delta between the estimate and\nthe actual bid, in addition to the $4 million, to which the Base\nReuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether thought should be given to\nphasing the project.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the Stargell Avenue project\nwould not qualify for stimulus funding; stated the federal\ngovernment is talking about a second, third, and fourth recovery;\nthe City needs to look to the State because the State may be\noffering some incentives for ready projects; the City would draw\ndown on the loan amount based on actual needs; not having some\nopportunity to repay the Sewer Fund in the next five years is less\nthan 3%\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how much money is in the\nSewer Fund.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded the true cash fund balance\nis approximately $18 million.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 20, "text": "Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired where the money came from,\nto which the Interim Finance Director responded the money\naccumulated over time.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what are the funding\nprojections for the next five years.\nThe Public Works Director responded existing projects would\ncontinue without needing to access any of the money that would be\npart of the loan; stated staff is currently embarking on a Sewer\nMaster Plan to identify a twenty-year capital improvement project\nplan which would indicate whether property tax fees should remain\nthe same or change.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether some of the funding\nwould be used for Alameda Point infrastructure.\nThe Public Works Director responded typically, developers pay\nimprovement costs.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired what would be the funding\nstream if Catellus does not move forward.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the CIC\nwould be the promissory note holder; stated funding could come from\ntax increment, bonds, or lease revenues from Alameda Reuse and\ntedevelopment Authority (ARRA) or Fleet Industrial Supply Center\n(FISC) .\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other tax increment\nprojects would be impacted.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff\nwould start budgeting for the loan repayment ; stated other\nredevelopment projects may have to be postponed.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the staff report notes that\nthe $2.2 million pro rata share would be triggered within 120 days\nof Catellus finalizing a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Target ;\ninquired whether getting some type of entitlement before the $2.2\npro-rata share moves into City funds is not necessary, to which the\nBase Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated other revenue sources are\nlisted in addition to the Sewer Fund; there has been an on-going\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-03-17", "page": 21, "text": "impression that revenue sources are not sufficient to meet all\ncapital needs and maintenance costs in the long run; inquired\nwhether funds would be compromised by trying to move funding from\naccounts to pay for the Willie Stargell project.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nPublic Works Director noted that the Sewer Fund would not be\nimpacted; ARRA and FISC lease revenue funds are available and\nsufficient funds are still available for water system upgrades.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendations.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the extension is needed\nregardless of whether Alameda Landing goes forward within the\ntimeline.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated that he is\nextremely supportive of the staff recommendation; that he has\nconcerns with potentially impacting future projects; Catellus might\nnot move forward with Alameda Landing.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the extension is necessary whether\nCatellus goes forward with Alameda Landing or not.\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 8:23 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n4\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMarch 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-03-17.pdf"}