{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2009- - -7:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:05 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Opposing Fiscally\nIrresponsible State Takeaways [paragraph no. 09-219] was removed\nfrom the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*09-216) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on May\n19, 2009. Approved.\n(\n(*09-217) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,031,476.84\n(*09-218) Recommendation to Accept Phase II Infrastructure\nImprovements to the Intersection of Ralph Appezzato Memorial\nParkway/Webste: Street and Intersection Improvements at Mariner\nSquare Drive/Constitution Way and Authorize the City Clerk to\nRecord a Notice of Completion for the Improvements. Accepted.\n(09-219 ) Resolution No. 14338, \"Opposing Fiscally Irresponsible\nState Takeaways of Local Revenues. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested a briefing on the matter; stated\nthe public needs to know what the State's budget is doing to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 2, "text": "City.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the proposed resolution states that\ncities would experience financial hardships if the State proceeds\nwith borrowing any money from local government. the proposed\nresolution expresses solidarity in opposing the State wanting to\nbalance its budget and float more cash by borrowing from cities;\nthe City has worked very hard and has made some difficult decisions\nto balance the budget the City would lose $2.4 million in Fiscal\nYear 2009-2010; the City experienced a 10% reduction in force; one\nway to deal with the $2.4 million loss is to use cash reserves in\nthe Equipment Replacement fund with the hope that the State would\npay the money back in thirty-six months; the City would need to\nmake changes if the State chooses to increase the amount.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the Governor had a briefing today\nwith the Legislature; the State budget deficit is up to\napproximately $24 billion; the State is cutting $3. 1 billion for\nthe current Fiscal Year and is proposing to cut approximately\n$20.845 billion for Fiscal Year 2009-2010; the loan would be a one-\ntime take for Fiscal Year 2009-2010; nothing has been programmed in\nfor Fiscal Year 2010-2011; under Proposition 1A, the State is\nrequired to pay back the loan with interest within three years\ncuts are being proposed for Health and Welfare programs, In-Home\nSupportive Services, K-12 education, community colleges, and the\nU.C. system; prisoners may be released early if they are within six\nmonths to a year of the release date; approximately 5,000 State\nworkers will be laid off; that she and Councilmembers Gilmore and\nTam will be going to Sacrament tomorrow to plead the City's case.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested an explanation of Proposition 1A.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated Proposition 1A was passed by State\nvoters in 2004 and allows the State to borrow from cities,\ncounties, and special districts twice within a ten-year period; the\nState needs to pay back the first borrowing with interest before\nborrowing the second time; the first borrowing was paid back early\nin order to have an opportunity to borrow again; there is some\ndebate about whether redevelopment funds can be included; the\nCalifornia Redevelopment Association is in the process of fighting\na legal battle with the State over the matter; the California\nRedevelopment Association won the first round and the State is\nappealing.\nSpeaker David Howard, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-220) Ordinance No. 2995, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding Section 30-60 (Bay-Friendly Landscaping Requirements for\nNew City Landscaping Projects, City Renovation Projects, and\nPublic-Private Partnership Projects) to Article IV (Water :\nConservation Landscaping) of Chapter XXX (Development\nRegulations). \" Finally passed.\n(*09-221) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14339,\n\"Confirming the Business Improvement Area Report for Fiscal Year\n2009-2010 and Levying an Annual Assessment on the Alameda Business\nImprovement Area of the City of Alameda for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.\nAdopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-222)\nPresentation by Fiscal Sustainability Committee.\nThe City Treasurer gave a Power Point introduced the Committee\nMembers and gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what were the housing unit assumptions\nwhen the property transfer tax projections to the year 2020 were\nreviewed; stated several Alameda properties are in the\nredevelopment stage.\nThe City Treasurer responded the Committee did not include any\nproposed developments; stated the Committee addressed what is known\nnow.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Francis Collins and Northern\nWaterfront projects were not included.\nSteve Sorenson, Committee Member, responded specific developments\nwere not included; stated the Committee reviewed how the market was\ndoing as far as value and decline in transactions during the last\neight months; the Committee was a little more conservative than the\noriginal numbers ; the recent actual numbers bumped the numbers up a\nlittle bit.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Committee is relying on the\nchurn of existing home inventory.\nMr. Sorensen responded there is nothing else to count on; stated\nthe former Naval Air Station was treated fiscally neutral.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 4, "text": "The City Treasurer stated numbers can be updated the Committee\nused third quarter numbers.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether new numbers can be plugged into the\nmodel, to which Lorre Zuppan, Committee Member, responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated having a model that can be updated as\nsituations change is great.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Other Post Employment Benefits\n(OPEB) liability includes current employees who are vested or all\ncurrent employees, to which the City Treasurer responded all\ncurrent employees and retirees.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the private sector burn rate.\nThe City Treasurer responded the Committee did not get into\ncomparisons; stated that he assumes private sector costs are lower.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the private sector has lessened the burden\nbecause different retirement systems have been adopted over the\nlast ten to fifteen years.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the State is pre-funding its OPEB\nliability.\nThe City Treasurer responded the State's OPEB liability is over $1\nbillion and is not pre-funded.\nMayor Johnson stated the OPEB liability adds another layer of\nproblems onto the State's budget.\nThe City Treasurer stated Medicare is the biggest under funded\nmedical program.\nMayor Johnson stated the federal government can adjust Medicare\nbenefits; the State will not have the option of adjusting benefits\nto meet revenues.\nThe City Treasurer continued with the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson requested clarification of the cash reserve amount.\nThe Interim City Manager stated $6.8 million is real, unencumbered\nnet money in the cash reserve.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the cash reserve includes\nthe $1.1 million that the State Board of Equalization says that the\nCity owes back, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nThe City Treasurer stated the $1. 1 million is reflected in the\nforecast but is not reflected in the cash balance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated having a 25% reserve policy becomes less\nmeaningful when the City has a 9% reserve; inquired whether the\nCommittee recommended a reserve level.\nThe City Treasurer responded the Committee did not poll reserve\nlevels of other cities; stated the Interim City Manager has a\nwealth of experience in terms of good reserve levels; the City has\na stable revenue base. revenues are not fluctuating as much as\nother cities; the 25% reserve level was determined in the past and\ncan be adjusted; the amount should be particular to Alameda and\nshould be much higher than the current level.\nMayor Johnson stated there needs to be rules on how reserves are\ncounted; a prior City Manager counted a 23%-25% reserve which\naccumulated through deferred maintenance and ended up costing more\nmoney in the end; deferring maintenance is no way to accumulate\nreserves.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City had approximately $20 million in\nreserves between 2004 to 2005. reserves have been drawn down.\nMayor Johnson stated deferred maintenance allowed for the\naccumulation of the $20 million.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the $20 million was not really cash.\nMayor Johnson stated much of the $20 million was a fake reserve;\nthat she wants to have a real reserve, even if smaller.\nThe City Treasurer continued with the presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry about vehicles, Ms.\nZuppan, Committee Member, stated 173 vehicles and equipment are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 6, "text": "scheduled for replacement.\nThe City Treasurer continued with the presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the retrofit and maintenance\nrequired by the Americans with Disabilities Act plan was included,\nto which the City Treasurer and Ms. Zuppan responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether computers are included, to which the\nCity Treasurer responded computers are included in the Internal\nService Fund.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the current amount of needed street\nand sidewalk maintenance.\nThe Public Works Director responded the City's Pavement Management\nIndex (PMI) is approximately 65; ideally, the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission wants a PMI of 70 or above; it would take\n$6 million per year for the next ten years to reach 70.\nMayor Johnson inquired how much it would cost to remain at the\ncurrent level, to which the Public Works Director responded $3\nmillion per year.\nVice May deHaan inquired how much is currently being spent, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded $2 million, including\nARRA funds.\nThe City Treasurer continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that she appreciates all the work done; the\nCouncil put the Committee together because of concerns about where\nthe City is going; Council knew that business could not continue as\nusual; the Committee has exceeded expectations that she looks\nforward to community outreach and hopes that the public\nparticipates; balance is needed in implementing choices.\nThe City Treasurer stated the Committee endeavored to make the\nreport simple and understandable the first step is to identify the\nissues.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he and Councilmember Matarrese had\nthe opportunity to review the model : thanked the Committee; stated\nthe forecast is an important step and should have been presented\nfive years ago; 45% of City employees could be eligible for\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 7, "text": "retirement i even if retirement benefits were changed today, it\nwould still take twenty years to cover people under the current\nplan.\nThe City Treasurer stated that all options need to be investigated.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the Committee for all the hard work;\nstated the Committee presented the City with a tool to educate the\npublic and identify and grapple with the problem; that she spoke\nwith an Oakland Councilmember who has no idea of their OPEB\nliability; identifying the problem is the first step; the City did\nnot get into the problem overnight and will not get out overnight i\nthe City needs to come up with a coherent, long range plan and have\nmilestones along the wayi everyone should have input; the community\nneeds to make choices and trade offs.\nThe City Treasurer stated discussions need to involve what\nresidents want and what the City can afford.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has not been living within its means\nfor decades because of non-payment of OPEB and deferred\nmaintenance; choices need to be made now.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City has a structural deficiti if\nchanges are not made, the structural deficit will still exist when\nthe economy turns around; permanent changes need to be made the\nState is a perfect example of a structural deficit.\nThe City Treasurer stated sales tax revenue would go up when the\neconomy improves, but people will get pay raises because inflation\nwill be higher expenses will go up; a change in the economy will\nmake very little difference.\nMayor Johnson stated people advocate different departments ; people\nneed to think about the situation as a whole and not just protect\none service.\nThe City Treasurer stated the public needs to think about the\nmagnitude of cuts.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is impressed with the\nCommittee's expertise. thanked the Committee for finishing the\ntask; stated having a tool for running different scenarios is very\nimportant; the choices are to make cuts or raise revenuel the City\nneeds to change structurally; the Committee took the necessary time\nto deliver the product it is important to take the next stepi he\nhopes that people attend the public forums.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 8, "text": "The City Treasurer stated the report is a dynamic document ;\nrevisions will continually be made.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated tonight's report is the first\nedition.\nThe City Treasurer stated currently, the City has accurate\ninformation which will change within six months; the current\nversion is available on the website.\nCouncilmember Tam thanked the Committee for sharing their\nexpertise; stated discussions will have broader public policy\nimplications on land use; the public needs to understand that the\nCity cannot be a no growth City; costs still increase even if staff\nis not added; Alameda was the only city in the County that lost 10%\nof its population since 1997; the City is looking at ways to\nredevelop and stimulate the economy community input is necessary\nin order not to be stuck in a zero sum paradigm.\nThe City Treasurer stated hopefully people will understand the\nsituation better and make smart decisions.\nMayor Johnson presented certificates to the Committee members.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-223) Public Hearing to Consider Collection of Delinquent\nBusiness License Fees Via the Property Tax Bills.\nThe Interim Finance Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the number of delinquent fees seem to be\ngetting smaller every year.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(09-224) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to\nSubmit an Application for Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block\nGrant Funds.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nThe Facilities and Maintenance Manager stated the City secured a\nsilver LEED rating for the Library; the original Library design was\nto achieve basic certification; eighty-seven percent of projects\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 9, "text": "registered with the Green Building Council never complete\ncertification; a plaque ceremony will take place in September; that\nhe invoiced StopWaste.org for $75,000 for the silver certification\ngrant.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City secured a silver rating\nbecause the Facilities and Maintenance Manager spent his own time\nand energy pursuing the matter.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City would receive any\ncredit for solar panels, to which the Facilities and Maintenance\nManager responded in the negative.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the Library is the first public LEED\nbuilding in the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is a cost saving calculation.\nThe Facilities and Maintenance Manager responded the solar panel\ncost savings is $12,000 per year.\nMayor Johnson stated StopWaste.or and the Association of Bay Area\nGovernments (ABAG) are looking to pool money to receive a larger\ngrant working with the organizations through in-kind services\nwould be good.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Webster Street SMART\nCorridor Project is being coordinated with Oakland.\nThe Public Works Director responded the Oakland signal coordination\nis part of the project, which will also tie into 511.org.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether StopWaste.org's leverage\nmoney would come back to the City as cash or redundant services, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager responded the matter is to be\ndetermined.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City should offer in-kind\nservices rather than cash.\nCouncilmember Tam stated East Bay Municipal Utility District\n(EBMUD) offers residential water audits; right now the focus has\nbeen on multi-family housing because master meters cannot induce\nspecific, individual conservation; claiming in-kind services that\nEBMUD already provides would be appropriate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 10, "text": "Counci lmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(09-225) - Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing the\nSale of the Remnant Parcel at the Northeast Corner of the\nIntersection of Ron Cowan Parkway and Harbor Bay Parkway and\nAuthorize the Interim City Manager to Execute All Necessary\nDocuments. Introduced.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would prefer putting the\n$250,000 [ from the sale] into the Open Space Fund similar to the\nsale of the other parcel at the end of Maitland Avenue; the land is\nopen space and Alameda Beltline litigation is still pending; that\nhe is adverse to sale proceeds going into operational issues.\nMayor Johnson stated that she prefers to put proceeds in the Open\nSpace Fund.\nThe Interim City Manager stated depositing the funds in the\nFacility Maintenance Fund and Internal Service Fund was just a\nsuggestion; that she did not want the money to be budgeted as a\none-time revenue in the General Fund; inquired whether Council\nwould like to develop a policy regarding sale of land.\nMayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated especially if\nthe land is undeveloped; inquired whether the process is similar to\nthe sale at another Harbor Bay Parkway area.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nDevelopment Services Department handled the Gun Club property.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how the City obtained the property.\nThe Public Works Director responded the property was originally\npurchased from the Port of Oakland.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether said property used to have golf\nholes.\nThe Public Works Director responded the property was used for\norganic waste.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the Port of Oakland planned use\nfor the land.\nThe Public Works Director responded the land would be used to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 11, "text": "construct a runway safety area.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the City contemplated a use for\nthe land.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated\nseventy-five - percent of the land is restricted by the Federal\nAviation Administration (FAA) .\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether a Park n' Ride has ever been\nconsidered for the area.\nThe Public Works Director responded only twenty-five percent could\nbe used for a Park n' Ride lot the facility could not be lighted\nbecause of the proximity to the airport; headlights could not be\nused; the Port of Oakland was very dubious that the FAA would\napprove the use of a Park n' Ride lot, especially since the area\nwould be needed for a safety landing zone; the Port of Oakland is\nonly interested in purchasing the entire parcel; the usable area is\non the lower portion; access would need to be via the Ron Cowan\nParkway and would be difficult.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether alternative sites have been\nconsidered for a Park n' Ride.\nMayor Johnson responded the area near the Grand Pavilion is never\nfull.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated past discussions involved joining in with\nthe Business Park.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff had several meetings and met\nwith the Home Owner Associations regarding participating in the\ncost for a shuttle and there was no interest.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Council would receive a final\nreport on the matter; stated the developer made a commitment to\nstart the dialog.\nMayor Johnson stated the developer stated that the matter would be\nexplored.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff would provide a report ;\nstated AC Transit cuts may include reductions at Harbor Bay.\nMayor Johnson stated the ferry terminal parking lot is less full\nthan two years ago.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Tam inquired what the City paid for the property.\nThe Public Works Coordinator responded that she did not know;\nstated the land was purchased in the 1950's as part of a land swap\nwhen Harbor Bay was first being filled.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would not want to be forced into\na sale when market conditions are poor.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated the land is approximately $10\nper square foot and is comparable to remnant parcels that the City\nhas been selling for the last three or four years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance with\ndirection that proceeds be allocated to the Open Space Fund for\npurposes of purchasing open space in the future.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the land would\nbe used for open space.\nThe Public Works Director responded a roadway would be moved to the\nparameter and the rest of the area would provide the needed safety\narea.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated previous discussions addressed more\nactivity on the Ron Cowan Parkway side.\nThe Public Works Director stated the City is allowing the Port of\nOakland to keep the northwest corner driveway open for a year in\norder to re-grade the area; then the driveway would be closed;\nreopening the driveway would require a traffic study.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(09-226) ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Deleting Chapter XX (Flood Damage Prevention) and Adding a\nNew Chapter XX (Flood Plain Management to Meet the Requirements of\nthe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance\nProgram and Approve Updated Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Introduced.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the area could be changed, to which\nthe Public Works Director responded that he would not anticipate\nany changes.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 13, "text": "The Public Works Director reviewed the map at the request of the\nMayor.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether homeowners are aware that they are\nwithin the floodplain area and are eligible to buy insurance\nthrough the federal government.\nThe Public Works Director responded the issue is disclosed when\npurchasing a home; homeowners cannot close without evidence of\ninsurance.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City has flood insurance\nsince the City owns most of the Golf Course, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded the City is self insured.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Alameda Point was reviewed.\nThe Public Works Director responded Alameda Point is not mapped\nstated federal properties are not mapped by the Federal Emergency\nManagement Agency (FEMA) ; the City is required to do a Letter of\nMap Amendment before development.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated various studies have been performed on the\nFleet Industrial Supply Center (FISC) and Alameda Point property;\ninquired why studies were not included.\nThe Public Works Director responded map amendments are typically\npaid for by the developer.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated extensive studies have been performed and\nthere are concerning factors with developing Alameda Point ; the\nFISC property would have the same impact.\nThe Public Works Director reviewed the FISC map.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he was not aware that the FISC\nproperty is in a flood zone.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the property would need to be\nmitigated out of the flood zone as part of the development.\nThe Public Works Director stated the identified areas have been in\nthe floodplain for years.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether plans include remediation of the\nFISC floodplain area.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 14, "text": "The Assistant City Manager responded drainage improvements would\ntake the property out of the floodplain area.\nThe Public Works Director stated various options include filling in\nthe area and elevating the area above the base flood elevation;\nbuilding is allowed in the floodway but there are specific\nconstruction requirements to ensure that the lowest, finished floor\nis above the base flood elevation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated retail could be within the floodplain at\nthe FISC property.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated linear strips between the\nwarehouses are in the floodplain.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(09-227) Receive a Report on Sunshine Community Task Force\nReferral.\nThe Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates staff's efforts in\nexpediently moving forward on the matter; that she did not intend\nto limit herself to the five issues articulated in the staff\nreport. the community should be engaged in public access\ndiscussions currently, there are practical pressures on staff;\nthat she does not intend to create a burden on staff; suggested\ninvolving one of the good government advocacy groups, such as the\nLeague of Woman Voters, to help facilitate the dialogue; that her\ntendency is not to support the staff recommendation and to postpone\nthe formation of a Sunshine Community Task Force toward the\nbeginning of next year so that issues raised by the Fiscal\nSustainability Committee and budget situation can be addressed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether campaign reform discussions\nwould be appropriate at this time stated most cities have\nimplemented guidelines on limits for individuals, political\ncommittees, and in-kind contributions; the matter could be parallel\nto Santa Ana's Code of Ethics and Conduct.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Santa Ana's Code of Ethics and Conduct\ndeals with putting ethical principles together and is not geared\ntoward looking at campaign finance reform; Dan Pernell, Executive\nDirector of the Oakland Public Ethics Commission, strongly\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 15, "text": "recommended starting with a Sunshine Ordinance as a foundation to\nreceive community input on best practices rather than dive into an\nordinance without any parameters on what would be expected.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should stick to what is on the agenda i\nfurther stated Councilmember Tam's research indicates the\npreferable approach is to take one step at a time.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated campaign spending limits would be the\nsecond phase and should start to be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how much staff time would be\nneeded if the League of Women Voters oversees the matter.\nMayor Johnson stated the City just had a 10% reduction in force;\nstaff needs some breathing room.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Fiscal Sustainability Committee\ndid a great deal of work on their own but could not get data and\ninformation without City staff; there could be a very small group\nof five people focused on collecting material available in other\ncities and doing the staff work of compiling; coming up with\nsuggestions; and doing the leg work; there is an issue if Council\nappoints the group and they become subject to Brown Act issues,\nwhich require a whole lot of paperwork.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to get an idea of\nhow big or small the issue is and whether the scope could be self\ndriven external information gathering.\nMayor Johnson inquired how Oakland proceeded.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the Oakland model is not the one she\nenvisions. Oakland went through three years of hearings and had to\ndevelop a ballot measure and ordinance because the matter was not\njust a policy for the City but became part of the City Charter\nthat she does not find regurgitating State law helpful; public\ndialogue and input is useful to determine how the project should\nmove forward; that she recognizes the reduction in force; the City\nhas a lot of major priorities because of the State's fiscal crises.\nthe matter could be postponed until the first of the year; advocacy\ngroups could relieve the burden of staff.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he concurs with Councilmember\nTam regarding postponing the matter; costing out what things cost\nis important.\nThe Interim City Manager stated man hours need to be quantified;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 16, "text": "inquired whether Councilmember Tam is referencing calendar year or\nfiscal year, to which Councilmember Tam responded calendar year.\nThe Interim City Manager stated starting in the fall might be a\ngood idea because staff has a critical path up to then.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated everyone seems to be in agreement with\nJanuary issues not only include man hours but what else gets\npushed off in order to satisfy Council requests having the public\ninvolved is imperative; public frustration may not be realized in\nterms of accessible information; that she received an email\nregarding the City's financial reports; she suggested obtaining the\ninformation from the City's website; the information was difficult\nto find; obtaining information is not second nature to the public.\nMayor Johnson inquired how Laserfiche works.\nThe City Clerk responded optical character recognition allows\ndocuments to be searchable; stated hand written documents are fuzzy\nand problematic; noted Council policies would be posted.\nMayor Johnson stated the Alameda Museum has a lot of the City's\nhistoric documents ; the City should scan the documents so that\nindividuals can have electronic access.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the scope needs to be understood.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is suggesting not limiting the\nmatter to the five issues outlined in the staff report; the scope\ndeals with public access to government, boards and commissions, and\ninformation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam is stating\nthat the scope is much bigger than the five issues outlined in the\nstaff report.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the Brown Act requirements are what\npeople consider to be the minimum; stated the City does more than\nthe minimum for notifications but does not do more than the minimum\nfor other public access to documents; maybe the public wants more\nthan the minimum.\nMayor Johnson stated that Councilmember Tam's idea of starting in\nthe fall or January is good.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated guidance is needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested the matter be brought back on an\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 17, "text": "agenda at the beginning of the year.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that Councilmember Tam expects the\nmatter to be community driven because the process is to help serve\nthe community; Council will not know the best way to serve the\ncommunity unless the community is asked.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the wheel does not need to be reinvented\nmany other cities have gone through the process and should be used\nas a benchmark; staff could pull procedures.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Tam is suggesting that the\nCommittee could do a lot of the work.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not want to presuppose or\ndirectly dictate the confines of what the Committee can review.\nCouncilmember Tam moved looking at assembling the committee toward\nthe fall, but the committee would not actually start work until\nJanuary 2010.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-228 - ) Stephanie Zhoo, Calvin Fong, Romit Humuyai and Afsareh\nMortazavi, discussed banning or taxing plastic bags.\nMayor Johnson stated the City would love to ban and tax plastic\nbags; Oakland banned and taxed plastic bags and lost a lawsuit.\nnow, Oakland has to perform an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on\nthe impacts of banning plastic bags; the State does not allow\ncities to tax plastic bags suggested that the speakers write to\nthe State Legislature: EIR'S are very costly; other organizations\nare looking into doing a model EIR for plastic bagsi the City is\nwaiting for the proper time to move forward on the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the League of California Cities\nEnvironmental Quality Committee heard a presentation from various\nadvocacy groups that sponsored legislation; currently, legislation\nis going through Sacramento to have a Statewide ban.\nMayor Johnson stated Styrofoam containers would still be used if\nthe City waited for the State; lobbyists from the Styrofoam\nindustry came to Alameda and testified on how the City should not\nban Styrofoam; the State is more susceptible to influences of large\nlobbyists; the grassroots approach is the most effective wayi the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 18, "text": "next thing to worry about is plastic bottles.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(\n09 -229 - ) Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Civil Service Board, Commission on Disability Issues,\nHistorical Advisory Board, Housing and Building Code Hearing and\nAppeals Board, Planning Board, Public Utilities Board, Social\nService Human Relations Board, and Youth Advisory Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Avonnet M. Peeler, Civil Service Board;\nPaulina Kirola, Adrienne Longley-Cook and Jody Moore, Commission on\nDisability Issues; Donna Talbot, Historical Advisory Board; Ronald\nKhan, Housing and Building Code Hearing and Appeals Board; Rebecca\nKohlstrand Parsons, Planning Board; John McCahan, Public Utilities\nBoard; and Jonathan Soglin and Cynthia Wasko, Social Service Human\nRelations Board.\n(09-230) Councilmember Tam stated that she attended the League of\nCalifornia Cities Executive Forum last week; the League formed a\ncoalition with a number of local government authorities to\naggressively campaign against borrowing and takeaways; 150 cities\nhave already passed Fiscal Hardship Resolutions the session got\nsidetracked because of an impromptu press conference with the Mayor\nof San Diego on the SaveYourCity.net campaign; the League of\nCalifornia Cities' Finance Director is very cautiously pessimistic\nabout the State borrowing $2 billion, which translates to $2. 4\nmillion from Alameda; the In-Home Care Program is being taken away ;\ndefunding 80% of the State parks will have ancillary impacts on\ncities; voter sentiment is one of anger with the State Legislature\nand elected officials in general; passing a taxing measure will be\nvery hard in the near term; projections offered by the League are\nslightly different from the Fiscal Sustainability Report;\nprojections are that the economic downturn will bottom out at the\nend of 2009, but the overall recovery will be very lack luster and\nnot terribly robust; many cities are moving toward a two-tiered\npension system, particularly with the 3% at 50 formula; many are\nconsidering 2.7% as one way to fund the OPEB unfunded liability;\nthere is some expectation that CalPERs will be requesting\nadditional contributions from cities by the end of 2010; the City's\nadditional contribution could be $2.3 million.\nThe Interim City Manager stated CalPERS would send a report in the\nspring of 2010 addressing what can be recovered in the market\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 19, "text": "through June 30 of this year; the estimate for the City could\nincrease 3% or 4% above the estimated 2% to 6%.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:32 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\n19\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-06-02", "page": 20, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JUNE 2, 2009- - -6:30 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:40 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(09-214) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54956.9) i Name of Case: Ottaviano V. City of Alameda.\n(09-215) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of\nSection 54956.91 Number of cases One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Existing Litigation,\nCouncil received a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided\nlitigation direction; regarding Anticipated Litigation, Council\nreceived a briefing from Legal Counsel and provided direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJune 2, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-06-02.pdf"}