{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTuesday, May 19, 2009\nThe meeting convened at 7:47 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n2-A\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent: Chair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 1, 2009.\n2-B. Authorize Negotiation and Execution of a Sublease Extension for General Services\nAdministration at Alameda Point.\n2-C. Accept the Interim Executive Director's Statement of Emergency Regarding Expenditures\nfor the Fire at the Fleet Industrial Supply Center and Approve the Project Budget\nItem 2-C was pulled by Member Tam for discussion. The balance of the Consent Calendar\nwas motioned for approval by Member Tam, seconded by Member Matarrese and passed\nby the following voice votes: 5 ayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.\nItem 2-C - Member Tam asked for clarification on whether or not the debris retrieved was\ntested. Leslie Little, Development Services Director, explained that the debris was tested by\nquarter, and not tested individually, because the intent is to haul everything off. Member Tam\nalso asked what kind of thresholds should be met to determine whether it was cleaned\naccurately. Ms. Little stated that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) set\nthe standards for the cleanup.\nVice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese expressed concerns that the ARRA is now footing\nthe $1.6M bill for the demo of the burned building. They discussed Catellus' DA which obligates\nthem to do demolition, which included this building. Ms. Little explained that they're not\nobligated to do the demo because they have not moved forward with any initial phase. She\nfurther explained that an issue such as this is an unanticipated cost which clearly demonstrates\nwhat these do to the fund balance.\nMember Matarrese requested that the cost be transferred to the project and that Catellus\nremain obligated to reimburse the ARRA. He requested the City Attorney provide feedback on\nthe proper legal options we have so that the project becomes encumbered. Terri Highsmith,\nCity Attorney, understood the direction and will provide the information requested.\nMember Matarrese motioned for approval of Item 2-C with the provision of receiving\nfeedback from legal counsel on the possibilities of encumbering the cost to the project.\nMember Tam seconded the motion and it was passed by the following voice votes: 5\nayes, 0 Noes, 0 Abstentions.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "3.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n4.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nVice Chair deHaan and Member Matarrese attended the last RAB meeting and had\nconcerns about the Navy's cleanup direction - whether it is predicated on the PDC, or if\nthe Navy is remediating according to SunCal's concept plan. Member Matarrese\nrequested clarification of their method and also requested this item be agendized and\nbrought back to the ARRA at its next regular meeting.\n5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMeeting was adjourned at 8:04 p.m. by Chair Johnson.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 19, 2009- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:04 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-193A) Presentation on Water Emergency Transit Authority\nTransition Plan and Emergency Management Plan.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nJohn Sindzinski, Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA) Planning\nManager, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what WETA'S plans are once\ndevelopment starts at the Former Naval Air Station; further\ninquired whether the ferry serving Alameda and Oakland would move\nto said location.\nMr. Sindzinki responded that WETA anticipates a close working\nrelationship with the City to potentially reconfigure service or\nconsider changes that would make the most sense given the proposed\ndevelopment at the Former Naval Air Station as well as ensuring\nthat existing riders do not get short changed in the processi\nstated hopefully, the economy will improve by the time improvements\nare completed; additional ferry services are in demand.\nThe Public Works Director stated the Transition Plan mentions the\nAlameda Point location; the Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service would be\ntransferred over to the sea plain lagoon and would link up to the\nHarbor Bay ferry service; staff has applied for a discretional\nferryboat grant.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would happen to the riders in\nOakland.\nMr. Sindzinski responded plans are to keep the same level of\nservice out of Oakland and Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 2, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated a ferry service from Jack London Square to San\nFrancisco has been discussed.\nMr. Sindzinski stated the model is to operate the service directly\nfrom Oakland but is based on ridership estimates done five or six\nyears agoi now is the time to be creative; the role is to make the\nferry service work for as many people as possible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated nothing is set in stone.\nMr. Sindzinski stated making services work for as many people as\npossible is set in stone.\nMayor Johnson stated the WETA Board discussed the obligation to\nensure that attention would be given existing service levels before\nexpanding.\nMr. Sindzinski stated the five-year plan addresses being able to\noperate all existing services and bringing two new routes on line.\nVice Mayor deHaan commended WETA for looking at Alameda Point as\nthe maintenance operation; stated hopefully, the developer\nunderstands the requirements; Alameda and Vallejo requested a\ncertain amount of Return on Investment (ROI) ; inquired whether the\nmatter has been addressed.\nMr. Sindzinski responded the Transition Plan shows that existing\nservices will be retained within the amount of funding available;\ncosts need to be identified; a lot of work needs to be done.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he recalls requesting a $2 million or\n$3 million ROI.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he does not recall the\namount; the City would be compensated for money that could be used\nfor other purposes negotiations are still in progress.\nKeith Stahnke, Water Emergency Transit Authority Operations\nManager, continued with the Power Point presentation.\nMr. Sindzinski stated WETA is very cognizant of the long tradition\nand history that Alameda and Vallejo have in providing ferry\nservices WETA is committed to keeping services viable moving\nforward; Alameda has very sensitive needs in the event of a\ndisaster.\nThe Public Works Director noted that Mayor Johnson sits on the WETA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 3, "text": "Board.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\n[paragraph no. 09-196] ; the Quarterly Treasury Report [paragraph\nno. 09-197] i and the Resolution Authorizing the Interim City\nManager or Designee to Apply for a State Water Resources Control\nBoard Loan [paragraph no. 09-203 ] were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan 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(*09-194) - Minutes of the Regular and Special City Council Meetings\nheld on May 5, 2009. Approved.\n( *09-195) - Ratified bills in the amount of $1,851,801.03.\n(09-196) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for\nthe period ending December 31, 2008.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there is some good news in today's\neconomic times; Alameda is doing very well compared to the State in\nterms of sales tax growth; the staff report is in depth and\nprovides good, detailed information; Harbor Bay Business Park shows\na positive change of 165.2% the City lost auto dealerships on Park\nStreet; inquired whether Harbor Bay Business could off set the\nloss.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCity is fortunate to have a light industrial business park; the\nBusiness Park creates jobs and also stabilizes the retail sales\nwhich are very volatile in the economic recession; business-to\nbusiness is a very healthy category.\nMayor Johnson stated that she attended a new ribbon cutting at\nHarbor Bay Business Park today hopefully a restaurant will be\nincluded in the next phase; complaints have been received regarding\nthe are not having food.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the staff report covers the last\nquarter of the last calendar year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 4, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated stable numbers are because of the efforts of\nthe Development Services Department.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the business-to-business category took a\nsubstantial drop between 2003 and 20041 the light industry segment\nhas had substantial growth within the last two years; the business-\nto-business category has less impact on the General Fund; commended\nthe Development Services Department; stated the philosophy has\nchanged at the Harbor Bay Business Park; light industry has become\nprominent.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(09-197) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Treasury Report for\nthe period ending March 31, 2009.\nCouncilmember Tam requested clarification of the City's cash assets\nnoted in the staff report.\nThe Interim City Manager stated cash-on-hand includes funds in\npetty cash, change boxes, and the vault; cash-on-deposit includes\nmoney in Certificates of Deposits, money markets, and investments;\ncash-on-deposit funds are accessible fairly quickly; working\ncapital includes funds on deposit with the Local Agency Investment\nFund (LAIF) ; money is accessible within twenty-four hours; idle\ncash includes funds under management by registered investment\nadvisors; bond proceeds include money left over from a debt\nissuance that are kept in a trustee account. the City's total cash\nassets were $127,373,871 as of March 31, 2009.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether working capital funds would be\nused if the City has to deal with that State borrowing $2 to 3\nmillion from the City's General Fund.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the State would give the City a\n\"net check;\" stated the State would take money before cash is\ndistributed; a \"net check\" might not be enough to pay all bills in\na ninety-day period.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City\nManager stated $127,373,871 is all cash together; approximately\n$8.6 million is General Fund cash.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the $127,373,871 is real\ncash in the aggregate from everywhere in the City and could be used\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 5, "text": "for spending.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the $127,373,871 cannot be used\nfor spending stated the amount is cash that the City is working\nwith to invest and pay bills.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-198) - Recommendation to set June 2, 2009, for Public Hearing to\nconsider collection of delinquent business license fees. Accepted.\n(*09-199) Recommendation to set the Public Hearing for delinquent\nintegrated Waste Management charges for June 16, 2009. Accepted.\n(*09-200) Resolution No. 14329, \"To Preliminarily Approve the\nAnnual Report Declaring the City's Intention to Order the Levy and\nCollection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public\nHearing on June 16, 2009 - Island City Landscaping and Light\nDistrict 84-2.\" Adopted.\n(*09-201) Resolution No. 14330, \"To Preliminarily Approve the\nAnnual Report Declaring the City's Intention to Order the Levy and\nCollection of Assessments and Providing for Notice of Public\nHearing on June 16, 2009 - Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 -\n(Marina Cove). Adopted.\n(*09-202) Resolution No. 14331, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Apply for a Permit from Dredged Material Management\nOffice and Other Necessary Agencies for Dredging of the Harbor Bay\nFerry Channel. Adopted;\n( 09-202A) - Resolution No. 14332, \"Authorizing CLE Engineering, Inc.\nof Novato, California to Represent the City of Alameda on All\nMatters Pertaining to Dredged Material Management Office Dredging\nPermit Applications. Adopted; and\n(*09-202B) Resolution No. 14333, \"Adopting California Environmental\nQuality Act Class 4 Categorical Exemption (15304 (G) ) with Alameda\nCounty of the Upcoming Dredging Episode. Adopted.\n(09-203) Resolution No. 14334, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager or Designee to Apply for a State Water Resources Control\nBoard Loan in the Amount of $3,546,000 and Execute All Associated\nAgreements, and Identify the Sewer Fund as the Source of Revenue\nfor Repayment of the Loan. \" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Development Services Department was\nrecently loaned approximately $3 million for the Wilver \"Willie\"\nStargel project; that he has concerns about borrowing money from\nthe State and using the Sewer Fund as the source of revenue for\nrepaying the loan; the process does not seem to be correct money\nmanagement.\nThe City Engineer stated staff planned on using economic recovery\nfunds when interest rates were not known; staff has been advised\nthat interest rates would be between zero and three percent; staff\nwill finalize the loan if the proposed interest rate for the Clean\nWater State Revolving Fund are lower than interest rate received on\nthe Sewer Fund balance; money is available and has been earmarked\nfor the project staff is trying to take advantage of any economic\nrecovery monies available.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns with an internal\nloan.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Council approved a loan from the\nSewer Fund to the CIC to complete the project and protect STIP\nfunds; the CIC is paying the Sewer Fund almost 3% in interest; the\nSewer Fund has the opportunity to borrow the money from the State\nat less interest.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how much interest the City is getting\nfrom the Sewer Fund to the CIC, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded 3%\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the profit margin is very thin.\nThe Interim City Manager stated 2% is not too bad in this market.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-204) Resolution No. 14335, \"Approving Amendment No. 1 to the\nLong-Term - Power Purchase Agreement between Iberdrola Renewables,\nInc. and Alameda Municipal Power. \" Adopted.\n(*09-205) Resolution No. 14336, \"Of Intention to Levy an Annual\nAssessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the City of\nAlameda for Fiscal Year 2009-10 and Set a Public Hearing for June\n2, 2009. \" Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 7, "text": "(09-206) Financial \"State of the City\"\nThe Interim City Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the League of California Cities has\ntaken a position regarding additional cuts threatened to cities if\nState propositions do not pass.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the League of California Cities has\ntaken a very strong, strident position that the State should be\nbalancing its budget with State funds instead of counting on\ncities the League has launched a campaign to garner support for\ncoalition partners that depend so heavily on cities to provide some\nsafety net programs cities can adopt a Resolution of Hardship if\npayroll cannot be made without declaring bankruptcy.\nThe Interim City Manager stated forty cities within California have\nstated they would experience financial hardship if the State\nborrows money from them; many cities do not have cash reserves ; the\nconvoluted logic is that cities could borrow cash with interest\nfrom the State for money that the State took from cities.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the obligation to the State\nwould be discharged if a city filed bankruptcy, to which the City\nAttorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated bankruptcy is a creature of federal\nlaw.\nMayor Johnson stated cities need to review the City of Vallejo's\n[bankruptcy] case.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City could be eligible to\npass a Resolution of Hardship.\nThe Interim City Manager responded there is no criteria stating\nthat a city has to be in a certain dire state to pass a Resolution\nof Hardship; stated the idea behind a Resolution of Hardship is\nthat every dime in the reserve cash balance has been spent and the\ncity is operating on negative cash.\nCouncilmember Tam stated cities would be penalized for prudent\nfinancial management.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City would have to stay frosty\nfor the next few weeks to see what happens with the propositions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated larger cities do not have a lot of cash\nbecause obligations are so large; small cities do not have extra\ncash; mid-sized cities are the easiest target.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that larger cities are self-insured\nand cash is protected to pay claims larger cities are in a cash\nstrapped situation; Alameda can weather the storm if the situation\nlasts for a year now the State is coming after larger revenues to\ndeal with structural deficits that have occurred over twelve years.\nMayor Johnson stated the public should know the amount of money\ndiverted by the State in the last seven years.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the State has taken approximately\n$53 million from the City since the last recession.\nCouncilmember Tam stated cities were supposed to inundate the State\nwith a thousand calls after the Governor released the May revise.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated that she made her case outlining how\nthe Governor should look elsewhere for monies; that she requested\nlocal realtors and the Chamber of Commerce to call; the Chamber of\nCommerce alerted business associations to call; the Governor did\nnot restore the Vehicle License Fee.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Vehicle License Fee was paid back\nquickly in the past; inquired how much is the AMP note.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the AMP note is the difference\nbetween the 0.4% and 1% [ROI] for the last thirty-six months, which\nis about $1. 2 million and does not include the loan to start the\ntelecom enterprise; a reasonable repayment schedule needs to be\nreviewed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated an appropriate approach would be to give\ndirection to: 1) not pursue further workforce reductions; 2) review\ncreative ways to delay calling in AMP loans; and 3) review ways to\ndelay funding the internal service fund debts.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City needs to stay very alert\nand frosty; cities will need to speak louder than before.\nMayor Johnson stated there are a lot of unknowns; cities need to be\nvery careful.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City could make money by\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 9, "text": "investing in Oakland's 9% tax-exempt bonds.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City can buy somebody else's\ntaxable debt; departments paying debt service would not have to pay\nas much if the City could make more money by investing reserve\nfunds and making a higher return for a year or two.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether staff knows if Oakland\nwould default; stated Oakland's deficit is extreme tonight's\nelection outcome could put Oakland's back up against the wall.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City needs to review credit\nratings along with what assets back the debt.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the City's current bond rating,\nto which the Interim City Manager respond AA-\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is Oakland's bond rating.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she does not know; stated\nthe City could buy AMP's debt.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the life expectancy of the\nvarious redevelopment projects.\nThe Development Services Director responded the Business and\nWaterfront Improvement Project (BWIP) goes out to 2032; stated the\nWest End Community Improvement Project (WECIP) goes out to 2026;\nAlameda Point Improvement Project (APIP) goes out to 2031.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Development\nServices Director responded terms were not changed when the areas\nmerged.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether more bonding efforts are\nanticipated.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative\nstated there are limitations on when debt can be issued; debt can\nonly be issued within the first twenty years of a project area's\nlife; staff anticipates APIP'S project life will need to be\nextended through an amendment process.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what terms are granted through the\namendment process.\nThe Development Services Director responded ten years would be\nrequested; the normal life of a project usually coincides with the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 10, "text": "time debt is issued, which would typically be between twenty-five\nand thirty years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the APIP clock is rolling.\nThe Development Services Director stated APIP debt falls on lease\nrevenue and the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority;\ncurrently, APIP does not have any debt.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-207) Public Hearing to consider introduction of an Ordinance\nAmending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding Section 30-60 (Bay-\nFriendly Landscaping Requirements for New City Landscaping\nProjects, City Renovation Projects, and Public-Private Partnership\nProjects) to Article IV (Water: Conservation Landscaping) of\nChapter XXX (Development Regulations) .\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nTeresa Eade, StopWaste.Org Senior Project Manager, gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what type of grants are issued.\nMs. Eade responded that Bay-Friendly and Green Building Landscaping\ngrants are issued; stated project teams and cities need to notify\nStopWaste.Org to receive technical assistance; grants range from\n$5,000 to $35,000 for Bay-Friendly Landscaping and range from\n$20,000 to $70,000 for Green Building Landscaping.\nMayor Johnson stated the City received a grant for the Library.\nMs. Eade stated the idea is to offset costs.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what size project could be funded\nthrough a grant.\nMs. Eade responded the City's policy would be about 10,000 square\nfeet; stated grants require at least a 2,500 square foot irrigated\narea.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(09-208 - ) Appeal of December 17, 2008 Finance Director Decision and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 11, "text": "March 9, 2009 Bureau of Licenses Decision to revoke the Business\nLicense of the \"Purple Elephant\" located at 1537 Webster Street,\nSuite B, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson announced that she would recuse herself because she\nwas a hearing officer on the Bureau of Licenses appeal.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Edward Higginbotham, Appellant's\nCity Attorney; Robert Raich, Purple Elephant Collective, Inc.\nJuliet Hopper, Richmond; Garland Lee Mahan, Alameda; Gary Lebitt,\nAlameda; Ann Channin, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of appeal) : Kathy Moehring, West Alameda\nBusiness Association (WABA) ; Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA)\n.\nThere being no further speakers, Vice Mayor deHaan closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nFollowing Mr. Higginbotham's comments, Councilmember Gilmore stated\nthe staff report notes that the substantive findings supporting the\ndecision of the Interim Finance Director and the Bureau of Licenses\nwere never challenged; the nature of the business was not described\nfully and accurately because of the business owner's fear of\nfederal prosecution; the transcript notes that the business owner\nstated that no one puts medical cannabis on anything because other\ncities such as San Francisco, Oakland, and Berkeley have contracts\nagreeing not to turn over information to the federal government ;\nthe business owner was not provided with the form so he did not put\nanything down; inquired whether the business owner did not\naccurately describe the nature of the business.\nMr. Higginbotham responded it depends upon how accurately and\ncompletely is described; stated most businesses in the area have\nsimilar details of the business; general retail is accurate.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the substantive findings were never\nchallenged.\nMr. Higginbotham stated the business owner has never been\nuntruthful.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Purple Elephant is still\noperating after the two hearings, to which the Interim City Manager\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 12, "text": "responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated the Appellant is permitted to continue to\noperate until the City reaches a final decision.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether ongoing efforts have been made\nto consider an ordinance.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated a moratorium\nis currently in place on the particular land use in order to permit\na study of where appropriate use would be within the City and what\ntype of conditions would be necessary; the moratorium is in place\nuntil June of next year; a report will come back to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the first assertion states that the\nAppellant only received eleven days notice on a hearing to show\ncause; inquired whether the eleven days is in contradiction with\nState or federal law.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the second assertion states that the\nInterim Finance Director had a conflict of interest based upon the\nfact of being a paid employee in the capacity of the hearing\nofficer.\nThe City Attorney stated that she interprets the Haas case very\ndifferently than Mr. Higginbotham; the Haas case involved a paid\nhearing officer; the court discussed the inappropriateness because\nthe hearing officer had interest in the ruling, which is not the\ncase of an employee of the City.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Interim Finance\nDirector's status as the hearing officer is any different than\nCouncil's status as the ultimate Appeals Board as employees of the\nCity, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she did not see anything in the\nrecord that indicated that the Appellant received any zoning\napproval from the Planning and Building Department or that the\nPlanning and Building Department had any opportunity to weigh in on\nthe appropriateness for the City.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the transcript notes that the hearing\nofficer explicitly requested what was in the Appellant's mind when\nstating miscellaneous retail in order to classify the type of\nrevenue and that there was a disclosure issue during the process;\nthat she wants to understand the classification of revenues.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 13, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated miscellaneous retail is used when\nthere is no other identifiable source and the business does not fit\ninto the industrial code of index.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that staff should have some idea of the\ntype of merchandise sold by classifying revenues; staff would not\nbe able to understand whether revenues are on par with the industry\nwithout said information.\nThe Interim City Manager stated indicating miscellaneous retail\ncross checks against a certain tax rate.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the issue has come up in other\njurisdictions where applicants have put down miscellaneous retail;\nthe business license was challenged in court later; the court made\na ruling in the 4th Appellant District in the City of Corona; the\nruling states \"Where a particular use of land is not expressly\nenumerated in a City's municipal code as constituting a permissible\nuse, it follows that such use is impermissible; inquired whether\nthe use is not permissible if the City does not have an explicit\npermissible use for medical marijuana dispensaries.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the Zoning\nAdministrator would need to determine whether the use is close\nenough to a permissible use in a particular location; otherwise,\nthe use would not be permissible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval to uphold the decision of\nthe Bureau of Licenses to revoke the business license.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore stated PSBA and WABA work\nvery hard to attract new businesses; many times PSBA, WABA and the\nDevelopment Services Department are aware of potential businesses\nlooking for space before a business license is pulled; that she is\nnot getting the sense that any dialogue occurred between the\nAppellant and business associations; that she is uncomfortable\ngiven the incomplete disclosure on the business license and lack of\ncontact with local business associations; the Appellant did not\nsolicit the opinions of the business associations. the process\nseems to have been done under cover.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the business activity is illegal and\nis in conflict with Proposition 215; the City is caught in the\nmiddle; the findings of the two previous hearings merit upholding\nthe decisions of the Interim Finance Director and Bureau of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 14, "text": "Licenses ; what happens in the future will depend upon what happens\nbetween now and June, 2010 when the issue will be addressed during\nthe course of the moratorium.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nTam - 4. Abstentions Mayor Johnson - 1.\n(09-209) Resolution No. 14337, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Apply for Regional Measure 1 Bridge Toll Funds,\nIncluding Five Percent Unrestricted State Funds and Two Percent\nBridge Toll Reserve Funds for the Operating Subsidy and Capital\nProjects for the City of Alameda Ferry Services, and to Enter into\nAll Agreements Necessary to Secure These Funds for Fiscal Year\n2009-10\". Adopted;\n(09-209A) Recommendation to authorize the Interim City Manager to\nexecute a fourth amendment to the amended and restated Ferry\nServices Agreement with the Port of Oakland to extend the term for\none additional year at a cost of $70,6491\n(09-209B) Recommendation to authorize the Interim City Manager to\nexecute a one-year extension of the Sixth Amended and Restated\nOperating Agreement for the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry and adopt\nassociated budgets and\n(09-209C) Recommendation to authorize the Interim City Manager to\nexecute an amendment to the Agreement to extend the term for one\nadditional year of the Blue & Gold Fleet Operating Agreement with\nthe Alameda/Oakland Ferry Service and adopted associated budgets.\nThe Public Works Director and Ferry Services Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether WETA has seen the proposed amendment\nlanguage, to which the Ferry Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is WETA's response.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated WETA is interested in meeting\nwith the Port of Oakland to see what can be done in the event of\nsignificant expenses. WETA is interested in the Port of Oakland's\ntimeline; the Port of Oakland will hire a consultant to perform a\nthorough analysis of the barge and make recommendations about what\nneeds to be done; WETA is interested in knowing how the Gemini\nwould be impacted; the Alameda Main Street terminal is ready and\nmodified to handle the Gemini; the Gemini is being held back\nbecause the Port of Oakland's Clay Street dock has not been\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 15, "text": "repaired.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the ferry would not stop at Jack\nLondon Square if the Port of Oakland withdrew funding stated Jack\nLondon Square passengers are a significant part of the fare\nrevenue.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded the Port of Oakland\ncontributed approximately 49% percent of all tickets purchased in\n2008; stated most riders are excursion riders and do not take\nadvantage of commuter discounts; more than 50% of fare box revenue\ncomes from Oakland; hopefully, the Port of Oakland will move\nquickly.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the entire ferry service would be in\njeopardy without the Jack London service, to which the Ferry\nServices Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is not willing to insert the\nproposed paragraph because the jump from not finding money and\nkilling the service is very short; inquired whether tonight's\naction could be delayed.\nThe Public Works Director responded the matter could come back to\nCouncil; stated one option would be to allow the Interim City\nManager to negotiate and bring the matter back before finalization.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated perhaps the Blue & Gold Fleet\nOperating Agreement could be extended on a month-to-month basis;\nthat he has concerns because getting on the Port of Commissioners\ncalendar takes approximately two months; the Port of Oakland and\nBlue & Gold Agreements expire June 30, 2009.\nMayor Johnson stated the Port of Oakland Agreement language needs\nto be reflected in the Blue & Gold Agreement.\nThe Ferry Services Manager stated the Agreements already have\nlanguage stating that the City can suspend the Contract if funding\nsources do not come through.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Oakland's ability to fund dock side\nimprovements is not technically the City's the funding source;\nlanguage needs to be clear that if the Port of Oakland pulls out,\nit is tied to the existence of the ferry service in Oakland, not\nthe funding source.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired where Oakland gets funding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 16, "text": "The Ferry Services Manager responded from the Port of Oakland's\nGeneral Fund.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Port of Oakland is entitled\nto Measure B revenue.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded Measure B revenue is strictly\nfor Alameda's Ferry Services.\nMayor Johnson stated WETA has access to a lot of funding not\navailable to the City.\nThe Public Works Director stated that the City Attorney is saying\nthat Council could extend the Port of Oakland and Blue & Gold\nAgreements on a month-to-montl basis.\nThe City Attorney stated Council could authorize the Interim City\nManager to negotiate a fourth amendment with the understanding that\nthe new paragraph proposed would not be included.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is WETA'S position on taking over\nthe Ferry Service.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded the tentative transfer date is\nJanuary 1, 2010; stated WETA has discussed using Measure 1B\nPreparation Funds for the Port of Oakland barge; WETA would need to\nnegotiate with the Port of Oakland.\nMayor Johnson stated that maintaining Oakland's ferry service is\nimportant because of the Oak Street to Ninth Street development.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation\nto apply for Regional Measure 1 Funds.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of a month-to-month\nextension to the existing terms for the Blue & Gold and Port of\nOakland Agreements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the Interim\nCity Manager to execute the amendment to the Harbor Bay Ferry\nService Agreement.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Attorney stated Council may want to authorize the Interim\nCity Manager to negotiate a fourth amendment to the Port of Oakland\nFerry Service Agreement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the Interim\nCity Manager to negotiate a fourth amendment to the Port of Oakland\nFerry Service Agreement.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-210 - ) Mayor Johnson requested that consideration of appointment\nto the Youth Commission be placed on the next City Council agenda.\n( 09-211) Vice Mayor deHaan stated that the Mif Albright Golf Course\nis reopening Friday.\n(09-212) Vice Mayor deHaan stated an application has been submitted\nfor a Flea Market at the College of Alameda; there were major\nconcerns with the Antique Fair at Alameda Point; the community has\nconcerns with re-establishing a Flea Market in the West End\nhopefully, outreach has been done within the community and business\nassociations regarding the matter.\n(09-213) - Vice Mayor deHaan stated transmitting the last City\nCouncil meeting was problematic; inquired whether there is a backup\nsystem.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the problem was with Comcast or the\nCity.\nThe Public Works Director responded the problem was a Public Works\nproblem; stated there was a staff mix up; staff corrected the\nproblem as soon as they were aware.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 18, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker\nActing City Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 19, 2009- -6:45 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:50 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nPublic Comment : Jean Sweeney, Alameda, stated that development\nagreements are enforceable by law even if the development does not\nmaterialize as long as there is public benefit; SunCal has already\nsold their interest to D. E. Shaw; the Alameda Point Master Plan\nhas twenty pages of parks that may or not happen and contains big\npromises about saving the historic buildings; the SunCal initiative\nhas a different story; demolishing three hundred buildings to make\nway for six thousand homes on toxic land in a flood plain; to rip\noff Alameda citizens is unconscionable.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(09-192 CC/ARRA/09-17 CIC) Conference with Real Property\nNegotiators (54956.8) i Property: Alameda Point Negotiating\nparties : City Council / AARRA / CIC / SunCal; Under negotiations :\nPrice and terms.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the City Council, ARRA, and\nCIC received a briefing on the status of negotiations with SunCal;\nno action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, the Special Joint meeting was\nadjourned at 7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker, Acting City Clerk\nActing Secretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 19, 2009- -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 7:46 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n(*09-18 CIC) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting held on April 7, 2009, and the Special Joint\nCity Council/Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority/Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting held on April 14, 2009. Approved.\n(*09-193 CC) Resolution No. 14328, \"Approving and Adopting the\nReport to the City Council on the Proposed Amendments to the\nCommunity Improvement Plans for the Business and Waterfront\nImprovement Project and the West End Community Improvement Project,\nSubmitting the Report and Proposed Amendments to the City Council,\nand Consenting to and Requesting the City Council to Call a Joint\nPublic Hearing on the Proposed Amendments. Adopted; and\n( *09-019 CIC) Resolution No. 09-195, \"Consenting to and Calling\nJoint Public Hearings on the Proposed Amendments to the Community\nImprovement Plans for the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject and the West End Community Improvement Project. \" Adopted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n20\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-05-19", "page": 21, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 7:47 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLana Stoker, Acting City Clerk\nActing\nSecretary,\nCommunity\nImprovement Commission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n21\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nMay 19, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-05-19.pdf"}