{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 17, 2009- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:39 p.m. Vice\nMayor deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-457) Mayor Johnson announced that the Regular Agenda Items\nwould be addressed before City Manager communications.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-458) Proclamation Encouraging Participation in the 2010\nCensus.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Monica Xu,\nPartnership Specialist, U.S. Census Bureau.\nMs. Xu provided a handout to Council; thanked the Council for\nthe proclamation; introduced Wakili Bonner, Manager of San\nLeandro Census Local Census Office, and Partnership Assistants\nPaula Miller and Antoinette Porter.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\n[paragraph no. 09-462] was removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam 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(*09-459) - Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings held on\nNovember 3, 2009. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 2, "text": "(*09-460 ) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,435,478.11.\n( *09-461) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasurer's\nReport for the Period Ending September 30, 2009. Accepted.\n(09-462) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the Period Ending June 30, 2009.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired why taxable sales transactions\ndecreased 21% from the same quarter in the prior fiscal year.\nThe Interim City Manager responded not every quarter has the\nsame number of weeks; stated the decline is a trickle down of\nthe recession; the last sales tax report was much better because\nthe report reflected the Christmas holiday sales quarter.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether other jurisdiction comparisons\ncould be provided in the future, to which the Interim City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Interim City\nManager stated the City needs more aggressive business\ndevelopment ; sales tax may not be performing well but property\ntaxes are doing very well compared to other cities.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-463) Recommendatior to Appropriate $750,000 in State Water\nResources Control Board Grant Funding and $50,000 in Urban\nRunoff Funds, and Award a Contract in the Amount of $549,450,\nIncluding Contingencies I to Power Engineering Contractors for\nthe Installation of Mechanical Trash Racks at Stormwater Pump\nStations, No. P.W. 08-09-23. Accepted.\n( *09-464) Recommendation to Authorize the Replacement of Alameda\nFire Department Command Vehicle through the State of\nCalifornia's Contract Bid Process and the Purchase of Ancillary\nEquipment, Total Cost Not to Exceed $100,000. Accepted.\n( *09-465) Resolution No. 14400, \"Amending Resolution No. 9460 to\nReflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the\nCity of Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 3, "text": "Resolution No. 14219. \" Adopted.\n(*09-466) Ordinance No. 3011, \"Amending Ordinance No. 2130, New\nSeries, Updating the Civil Service System of the City of\nAlameda. Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-467) Resolution No. 14401, \"Appointing Kristy L. Perkins as\na Member of the Library Board. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented Ms. Perkins\nwith a certificate of appointment.\n(09-468) Public Hearing to Consider a Call for Review of the\nPlanning Board's Approval of a Use Permit for a Convenience\nStore Located at 1623 Park Street; and\n(09-468B) Resolution No. 14402, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nDecision and Approve Use Permit Application No. PLN-09-0253 For\na Convenience Store Located at 1623 Park Street. Adopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that convenient store parking\nrequirements be addressed; inquired whether there is a\nrequirement for the particular size store.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded retail space requires\none parking space per 200 square feet of floor area; however,\nbecause the building is an existing building, the provision is\nthat an existing retail use is being replaced by another retail\nuse and the on-site parking requirement is not triggered; the\nZoning Code takes into consideration existing businesses within\nolder buildings.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether something could be done regarding\nthe awnings.\nThe Planner I responded staff would work with the Development\nCoordinator on the matter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired who requested the appeal, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board's\napproval of the Use Permit was called for review by\nCouncilmember Matarrese.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the matter was called for review\nfor several reasons; that he reviewed the two findings made by\nthe Planning Board; his first concern is that the business\ndistrict has a substantial City investment in the theatre and\nparking structure a couple blocks down; questioned whether a\nconvenience store is the best option; stated that he believes a\nconvenience store would have a negative affect; the original\napplication was for a convenience store specializing in the sale\nof cigarettes and tobacco products; the City would be burdened\nwith policing the use; Oakland has a policing fee for such\nestablishments; there is a liquor store down the street and\nanother convenience store a block over; questioned whether the\n[retail] mix would be added to or something less than beneficial\nto the ambiance of the street would be proliferated.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the application has been\nmodified because staff has been working with the Applicant to\nreduce the sale of tobacco products in response to neighborhood\nconcerns, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated neighboring convenient shop owners have\nconcerns regarding potential competition; inquired whether the\nPlanning Board's role is not to control business competition\nwhich is a market driven activity.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the City does not have\nany guidelines with respect to amounts of particular businesses\nthat can be located in an area; if the convenience store were\nover one building, the Use Permit would not be needed.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how many years the building has been\nvacant, to which the Planner I responded four years.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how long the other liquor and\nconvenience stores have been in business, to which the Planner I\nresponded a fairly long time.\nMayor Johnson inquired which condition is the restriction on the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 5, "text": "amount of tobacco, to which the Supervising Planner responded\nCondition 11. .\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how many parking spaces would be\nrequired if the amount were not grandfathered in, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded five onsite parking spaces would\nbe required.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Applicant is proposing to\nsell 99C items.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Applicant is using the\ndescription to help define products to be sold; not all items\nwill be 99C or less.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the name of the store, Better Trade\nDiscounts, implies the same thing [sale of 99C items)\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Applicant operates other\nstores, to which the Supervising Planner responded the Applicant\noperates a produce store in Oakland.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to know whether the store\nwill be a convenience or discount store; opened the public\nportion of the hearing.\nProponents (In Favor of Call for Review) : Paul Singh, Alameda;\nMarilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; and Ann Selchon.\nOpponents (Not in Favor of Call for Review) : George King; Robb\nRatto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA)\n.\nFollowing Mr. King's comments, Vice Mayor deHaan inquired\nwhether the three previous businesses were operated by the\nowner, to which Mr. King responded in the negative.\nFollowing Mr. Ratto's comments Vice Mayor deHaan requested a\ncomparison of another store that is approximately 1,100 square\nfeet, to which Mr. Ratto stated the best example is Three\nWishes.\nFollowing Ms. Ezzy Ashcraft's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired\nwhat the Planning Board application said.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft responded the first application said smoke\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 6, "text": "shop, tobacco, and cigarettes; the application was pulled [from\nthe Planning Board agenda] ; when the application returned the\nsecond time, it said tobacco, cigarettes, candy, snacks, sodas,\n99C items, and newspapers; the current application lists candy,\nsoft drinks, tobacco, gift items, including cologne and\nperfumes, toilet accessories, grocery products, telephone cards,\nand 99C items; lighter fluid is listed as a hazardous materials\ninvolved in the operation; that she noticed bong pipes in the\nstore.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board was still\napproving the application for a convenience store even though\nthe amount of tobacco allowed in convenient stores was exceeded.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative;\nstated the findings indicated that the business would not have a\nnegative impact on circulation and other uses within the\nneighborhood; stated the amount of tobacco does not exceed the\namount allowed, but triggered the need for the Use Permit.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Economic Development and Community\nDevelopment made the determination that are different levels of\nstores; increased activity would come back for review.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated zoning regulations except\nexisting buildings and businesses within the buildings from\nproviding new parking spaces if there is a change in use;\nEconomic Development, Public Works and Community Development are\nworking at reevaluating parking requirements for the Park Street\nand Webster Street business districts; that he has received\nfeedback and recommendations are to roll back parking\nrequirements in the Zoning Code.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Community Development looked\nat retail balance; further inquired whether Economic Development\nwould be the responsible department.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Economic Development\ncould help with the analysisi Community Development felt that\nthe findings could be recommended to the Planning Board to\nsupport approval of the Use Permit.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the type of stores in the\narea are restricted, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 7, "text": "the application to meet expectations; the business plan needs to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 8, "text": "follow the application.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he concurs with Mayor Johnson.\ninquired what activities are above the store, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded residential units.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the upstairs could be used\nfor other stores, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether changing the use from\nresidential to some type of business would trigger City review.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the City would want to\nensure that egress and Building Code requirements are met, in\naddition to Fire Code requirements; stated parking would need to\nbe reviewed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the change of use would\ntrigger the parking requirements because the use would not be\ngrandfathered in, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City has jurisdiction over\nthis type of business and the zone in which it resides there is\nalways going to be somebody one foot over the line inquired\nwhether there will be protections for the rest of the district\nin which the business resides, to which the Planning Services\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot support upholding\nthe Planning Board's decision; the convenient store started out\nas something that he could never support and has migrated to\nsomething that might be palatable; that he would like to see if\nthere is a use that does not require protection; convenient\nstores within 300 feet of residential buildings have protection\nbecause there are negative impacts the reason the rest of the\ndistrict is considered is because the finding has to work within\nthe context of the district; that he would support of sending\nthe matter back to staff to see if something could be worked out\nso that it is not a convenience store.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the difference between a\nconvenience store and a 99C store.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 9, "text": "The Supervising Planner responded there is no distinction;\nstated staff considered this a convenience store to ensure\nprotections would be in place and that the store would not\nevolve into something objectionable to the community.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether convenience store rules are\nstrong enough to keep the store from evolving into a 99C store,\nto which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what conditions could be put in place to\nensure that the store does not become a 99C store.\nVice Mayor deHaan responded the square footage would never be\nthere to run a 99C store; stated a good 99C store would require\nno less than 9,000 square feet.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation\nwith the change that the Planning Board review be in six months\nas opposed to a year.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has\nconcerns regarding staff having the burden of policing the\nestablishment to ensure that conditions are met; future\nconsideration should be given to how [staff monitoring] costs\ncan be recovered.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes louncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Tam,\nand Mayor Johnson - 4. Noes: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated convenience store window coverage is an\nissue; that he would like the project to become a model of\nexecuting the current ordinance.\nCOUNCIL REFERRAL\n(09-469) Consideration of Modifying the September 15 Council\nDirection regarding Measure WW Funding.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Council Referral is a\nprocedural matter; the issue is not up for a full debate\ntonight ; at a previous meeting, Council directed staff to get\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 10, "text": "East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Bond Counsel's opinion\nregarding Measure WW; since direction was given, staff was\ninformed that EBRPD's Bond Counsel's opinion probably would not\nbe forthcoming for quite a while; that she is requesting that\nthe matter be placed on the next City Council agenda in order to\nhave a full discussion and a decision made one way or another.\nSpeakers Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard, Estuary Park\nAction Committee; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda;\nReed Wetherill, Alameda; Debra Arbuckle, Northside Neighbors;\nRosemary McNally, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Michael John\nTorrey, Alameda Rich Sherratt, Alameda Boys & Girls Club.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of placing the matter on\nthe December 1 City Council agenda.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the procedural issues\nseems like a catch 22 that was created by Council relying on\ncomments made by EBRPD management; EBRPD will not know whether\nthe project is eligible until an application is submitted; an\napplication cannot be submitted unless the project is on a list;\nirrespective of the merits of the project, it has to be\ndiscussed; having a full, substantive discussion on December 1\nand getting the issue resolved one way or another before the end\nof the year is appropriate.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not have a problem with\nbringing the matter back for discussion; that she would like\nstaff to request that EBRPD to get an opinion from Bond Counsel.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is taking so long.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the EBRPD Assistant General\nManager has indicated that Bond Counsel's opinion would not be\nforthcoming and that no opinion on the eligibility of project\ncan be rendered by the District in whole or in part until a\ncompleted application is submitted; a determination would be\nmade as the application goes through the processi a January\nanswer should not be anticipated.\nMayor Johnson stated the request needs to be made; EBRPD\nrepresentatives indicated to Council and the Boys & Girls Club\nthat the project seems to meet Measure WW requirements.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 11, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated there is concern whether the project is\nlegal.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she would urge the\nAssistant General Manager and indicate Council's eagerness to\nreceive Bond Counsel's opinion; that she does not want to leave\nanyone with the expectation that the opinion will be forthcoming\nuntil the application is completed.\nMayor Johnson stated EBRPD representatives need to let Council\nknow if their position has changed and not in vague terms.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with\ncalling the question Council needs to make a decision; the\nquestion is not if Council can, but if Council should; that he\nwants EBRPD representatives to come back in person to answer\nquestions.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a wish list needs to be finalized,\ninquired whether the list is in order; stated Council needs to\nknow what would be given up.\nThe Interim City Manager responded needs need to be revisited\nand revalidated; stated careful attention needs to be given to\ndeferred maintenance; deferred maintenance projects are limited\nunder Measure WW because projects are required to have a life of\ntwenty-five years.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council needs to be armed with all\ninformation; inquired whether the list would be put together by\nDecember 1.\nThe Interim City Manager responded not if the process goes\nthrough the Recreation and Park Commission.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the list has been vetted twice in\nthe last year by the Recreation and Park Commissioni the list\ncan be brought back at anytime for analysis; the question is\nwhether to wait for a legal decision that he does not have any\nfaith will come.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 12, "text": "CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-470) Fire Department Response Standards\nThe Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated since the beginning of the year the\nCity started rotating brownouts to save funds; a decision was\nmade to close Station 5; inquired whether training has been\ncompromised because of the brownouts as well as staffing issues.\nThe Fire Chief responded staff was challenged even before\nbrownouts; any fire department is challenged to provide enough\ntraining; since the brownouts there is an affect, plus there was\na reduction of one training director; crews are busier the\nmatter is more of a logistics issue, but has been managed quite\nwell; a training calendar has been put together for the next two\nyears.\nCouncilmember Tam stated team coordination comes with the number\nof drills; inquired what difference has been noticed since\nbrownouts, specifically in the number of drills the Department\nis able to perform before and after.\nThe Fire Chief responded that he heard complaints that not\nenough drills were performed even before the brownouts,\nespecially multi-company drills staff still has the obligation\nto cover the City and provide services when in training;\nresponse times can be impacted during training.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether response times are impacted\nbecause there is not enough staff to cover the people who are in\ntraining.\nThe Fire Chief responded in order to have an effective joint :\nexercise, at least two or three companies are needed and\nresponse time could be delayed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested an explanation of why two trucks\nare needed since Alameda does not have any high-rise buildings.\nThe Fire Chief responded one reason is that trucks are dispersed\nthroughout the community to improve response times and also to\nget enough resources to perform all tasks; the close proximity\nof buildings prohibits putting ladders between buildings\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 13, "text": "ventilating roofs is important; two ladders are needed in order\nfor firefighters to have another to egress when on a roof.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the answer she received was that\nthe City has a lot of properties that are odd shapes and have\ndeep lots; sometimes that [using a truck] is the only way to get\nto the back.\nThe Fire Chief stated sometimes access to the back is difficult.\nMayor Johnson stated more prevention should be done.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the ladder truck was critical at the\nGrand Street fire because of the set back from the street.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a consultant questioned the value of\nthe ladder truck; inquired why the consultant was so critical.\nThe Fire Chief responded some people may think that if water is\nbeing put on a fire, trucks are not as important stated truck\ncompanies are usually the first to be cut because trucks are not\nas multi-versatile as engines.\nThe Fire Chief continued with the Emergency Medical Services\n(EMS) portion of the presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated response times would be quicker if each\nmedical call were treated as a heart attack; however, the\ndownside would be putting people at risk.\nThe Fire Chief stated the Fire Department puts a lot of stock in\nthe process dispatch uses to evaluate calls.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated decisions made on the scene are\nmade by the dispatcher; inquired whether the City will have some\nsay in dispatch center actions.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the system is\ncertified and has been tested and evaluated millions of times.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there should be assurance that\npeople answering the phones have been properly trained and\nqualified to make decisions.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated irreversible damage occurs within six\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 14, "text": "minutes in a cardiovascular event in most situations, the Fire\nDepartment will not be at the scene within said time.\nThe Fire Chief stated the Fire Department, at best, would just\nbe arriving five and a half to six minutes into the call;\npatient outcome depends on the degree of arrest; if there is\nfull arrest at mark zero and the Fire Department arrives at six\nminutes chances of survival are 50-50; survival would have\ndeprivation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated hopefully, said event does not happen\noften.\nThe Fire Chief stated statistic would be provided; the Fire\nDepartment needs to partner with the public; more public\nbuildings are equipped with defibrillators; the public needs to\nbe educated in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR)\n.\nCouncilmember Tam stated usually communities want to have\nneighborhood fire stations; inquired whether location is\nreflected in the response time for cardiovascular events or is\njust an average from any station.\nThe Fire Chief responded averaging is from stations; stated the\nearlier intervention, the better chance of survival engines are\noften preserved and trucks are cut because 85% of calls are\nmedical.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the average is meaningless by\nitself; the range is important.\nThe Fire Chief stated someone in full cardiac arrest for eight\nminutes could not be revived; the person could be saved with\nlimited disability if the department arrives on the scene in\nfour minutes; the longer past four minutes, there is more chance\nof disability if the person recovers; continued the\npresentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether three engines would respond\nto a boat fire no matter what, to which the Fire Chief responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is the response to\nflooding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 15, "text": "The Fire Marshall responded a gas leak in a flooded basement\nwould be treated as a natural gas leak which requires three\nengines, one truck, an ambulance and a Battalion Chief.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there is a protocol for tube\naccidents.\nThe EMS Director responded stated the Posey Tube is a dangerous\nenvironment to have an accident; injuries are hard to detect.\nresources are used to secure access and get staff in to make a\ndetermination; both Alameda and Oakland respond to tube\nincidents.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the new dispatch system would be\nable to determine whether injuries are involved.\nThe EMS Director responded it depends on the quality of the\nreporting party.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people typically drive out of the\ntube [after accidents) and [are clear when] reporting stalled\nvehicles.\nThe EMS Director responded there is not a typical Posey Tube\ncall.\nMayor Johnson stated the tube belongs to CalTrans; maybe\nCalTrans can give people instructions on what to do if there is\nan accident in the tube; that she noticed instructions on the\nfreeway a couple of weeks ago.\nThe Fire Chief stated that he would make the suggestion to\nCalTrans; continued with the Measuring Performance portion of\nthe presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there have been seven months of\nbrownouts in 2009; that he does not see a breakdown of the first\nfour months and the last seven months ; the best comparisons\nwould be before and after; it is important to have previous\nyears to show trends.\nThe Fire Chief stated data can be shown for any requested\ntimeframe; staff looked at April 1 to October 31; brownouts\nstarted on January 26; the first few months were very eradicate;\nStation 5 closed on April 1; data for April 1 through October\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 16, "text": "31, , 2009 is being compared to the same seven months in the prior\nthree years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the tables should be labeled\naccordingly.\nThe Fire Chief continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether it is fair to say that the\nFire Department's ability to comply with the National Fire\nProtection Association (NFPA) standards for the months of April\nthrough October was a little over 70% of the time [previously]\nand in 2009, the yellow and red bar shows that the Department\nwas out of compliance with the NFPA [standard] 90% time, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated District 5 is less than 10% [in\ncompliance with NFPA standards] inquired why the City selected\nthe area.\nThe Fire Chief responded Station 5 was selected because of the\nlow call volume.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated statistics are pointers, not the\ntotal picture of assessing outcomes; performance was worse in\n2006 than 2009 with the brownout situation; the matter begs all\nsorts of questions; that he wants to know impacts.\nThe Fire Chief stated monthly reports show the number of\naffected calls throughout the City; impacts are noted;\nfortunately, significant impacts have not occurred due to\ndelayed response times.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the dice are being rolled by being out\nof compliance.\nThe Fire Chief stated studies were conducted by Citygate in 2004\nand by the International City/Council Management Association\n(ICMA) this year; the data matched the City's data; the City was\nhitting the same response time back then and now; continued the\npresentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief\nstated response times [in prior years] improved because of\nimproved technology; response times this year dropped because of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 17, "text": "Station 5 closure.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the brownout was the result of going\nfrom 27 down to 24 [mandatory] staffing [level]; inquired\nwhether staff totaled 27 in 2008, 2007, 2006, to which the Fire\nChief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why a four-year comparison was made\nfor all districts and only two years for Station 5.\nDeborah Keenan, Fire Department Statistician, responded the\n[Station 5] district data was only available for two years; data\nhas been requested from the County, but has not been forthcoming\nat this point.\nThe Fire Chief stated significant impacts have not occurred\nbecause of the low volume of calls at Station 5; as the volume\nof calls increases, the chances of hitting a significant impact\nincreases.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how districts are formed.\nThe Fire Marshall responded districts are divided\nby\ngeographical locations; stated new technology will be\nimplemented within the next twelve months that will dispatch the\nclosest fire unit by travel distance.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether implementation could be done\nbefore twelve months.\nThe Fire Marshall responded technology is in place; stated the\nobstacle is programming.\nThe Fire Chief stated the Automatic Vehicle Location (AVL) would\nallow dispatch to identify where the call is and dispatch the\nunit closest to the call.\nMayor Johnson inquired who would implement the program, to which\nthe Fire Chief responded Alameda County Communication Center.\nThe Fire Chief continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there has been partial\nimplementation of sprinkler requirements in the past.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 18, "text": "The Fire Chief responded there have been significant changes in\ncommercial sprinkler requirements; new residential and\ncommercial construction both require sprinklers.\nMayor Johnson stated Alameda already requires sprinklers for new\nconstruction: perhaps requirements should be implemented for\nhigh-risk buildings even if the buildings are not new\nconstruction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see\nrefining of data tracking, such as a month to month report card,\nto see what is significant and what is not; the costs of\ndelivering medical service will increase due to the fact that\nmany more people are at home now than in the past.\nVice Mayor deHaan thanked staff for the data; stated the data\nwill continue to improve; mutual aid calls are a concern; data\nshould be provided; community training is important; the Citizen\nEmergency Response Team (CERT) program is very worthwhile.\nThe Fire Chief stated Alameda was responding to Oakland a lot a\nnew policy was implemented last fall; Alameda does not respond\nto Oakland if the City [Alameda] has two or fewer ambulances\ncalls to Oakland have been cut by approximately 90%; Alameda\nuses mutual aid more than Oakland.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether American Medical Response\n(AMR) responding to an Alameda call is not included in the EMS\nresponse times, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the presentation tonight grew out of\nexhaustive budget discussions; inquired what is the role of\nstaffing in terms of providing adequate coverage and meeting\nresponse times.\nThe Fire Chief responded an analysis would need to be done\nregarding how many additional companies would be needed to\nachieve the standard.\nCouncilmember Tam stated staff needs to try very hard to meet\nthe standard.\nThe Fire Chief stated staff is reviewing things that can be done\nwithin the budget.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated the Fire Department would not be able\nto get accreditation with the current response times.\nThe Fire Chief stated a process would be needed to determine how\naccreditation could be accomplished.\nMayor Johnson inquired what percentage of transports go outside\nof Alameda, to which the Fire Chief responded approximately\nhalf.\nMayor Johnson stated outside transports put people at risk.\nThe Fire Chief stated staff is evaluating other ways to deliver\npatients off the Island.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the problem is geographical ; the\nCity has walked up to the edge and needs to see how solid is the\nedge; the City has been fortunate that there have not been any\nsignificant impacts.\nMayor Johnson requested a breakdown of emergency and non-\nemergency calls.\n* *\n(09-471) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing\nthe meeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked staff for the detailed report;\nstated Council is vitally interested in the issue; data is\nimportant Council's decisions are only as good as the data\nprovided; the data is presented in a very understandable manner.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether other fire departments are\nperforming data collection, to which the Fire Chief responded\ndata collection is performed to a certain extent.\n(09-472) Update on Councilmember Tam's Referral: Sunshine\nCommunity Task Force\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 20, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that sunshine ordinance move\nforward and he go would like to see a through the Community Task\nForce route.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she concurs that the matter should\ngo through a Community Task Force effort rather than spending\ntime second guessing whether a lobby registry would be needed as\npart of a ordinance; the matter may not be a priority for the\ncommunity; the community may see a bigger focus on trying to\nimprove the rating on accessibility of the Public Records Act;\nhopefully, the issue will be more community driven, rather than\nstaff driven.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should decide on components\nregardless of whether the issue is community or staff driven;\nthe lobbying registry is something that would be very valuable\nto the entire community.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Planning Board has tackled the\nnoticing guidelines on more than one occasion; the radius\nchanges depending upon the type of project; staff should start\nwhere the Planning Board left off; the Planning Board has an\nemail interest list for large community interest projects; that\nshe does not know whether there is some mechanism to notice\npeople by email; email notification would cut down on costs.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some issues noted in the staff report\ncould be extracted; better understanding what the public needs\nwould be a good idea.\nMayor Johnson stated Council could provide input to staff; staff\ncould develop a draft and then workshops could be held; having a\nTask Force start at the very beginning is very time consuming ;\nthat she would like to include campaign contribution limits,\nethic and confidential information components, including\ncompliance with the Brown Act, and requirements for\nCouncilmembers Board Members, and Commissioners to comply with\nthe Charter.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a Task Force would not bog down\nthe processi the framework has already been completed; not\nhaving an end date bogs the process down.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Councilmember\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 21, "text": "Matarrese; there are lots of reasons to have the matter be\ncommunity driven; the biggest reason is that the public\ninteracts with City Hall; the public complains whether or not\nthe City is transparent; the public is in a unique position to\nadvise the City about what is important to them.\nMayor Johnson stated staff should provide a starting place.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the wheel should not be\nreinvented. the question is whether the Task Force would provide\nfeedback on what to include or whether the Task Force would be\nworking Task Force.\nMayor Johnson stated the public should provide input on what\nshould be included.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the process should be very quick;\nthe list would be framed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff would be tasked with putting\nparameters together.\nMayor Johnson stated guidelines should be provided regarding how\nto deal with labor negotiations.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff would come back with some\ntype of construct.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the referral suggested having a\nrepresentative from the League of Women Voters serve as the\nfacilitator, in addition to one member being appointed by each\nCouncilmember that she has a problem with community members\nsaying that the City has some secret plan for Alameda Point and\nshe does not know the secret.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated having a League of Women Voters\nfacilitator is a good idea.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the most important thing is\nestablishing an end date.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Task Force would not be\npreparing documents, just issue spotting; the list would be\nbrought back to Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 22, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated staff would come back at the\nDecember 15 Council meeting; each Councilmember should submit\nsomeone to nominate for appointment.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-473) - Dave Duffin, Alameda, submitted a video; discussed\nrecent filming activities in the City.\n( (09-474) Nancy Rogers, Protect the Point Committee, requested\nthe letter assigned to the SunCal Initiative be changed.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is working on changing the letter.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-475) - Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to\nthe Commission on Disability Issues, Housing Commission, and\nYouth Advisory Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Ethel Warren for the Commission on\nDisability Issues; Clifton J. Smith for the Housing Commission;\nand Samantha J. Chin for the Youth Advisory Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\n(09-476) There being no further business, Mayer Johnson\nadjourned the Regular Meeting in memory of Dr. Alan Mitchell at\n12:26 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 23, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -NOVEMBER 17, 2009- -6:50 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:00 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam, and Mayor\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(09-455 - ) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nSignificant exposure to litigation pursuant to subdivision (b)\nof Section 54956.9. Number of cases: Onel Under negotiation:\nPrice and terms.\n(09-456) Conference with Legal Counsel - Liability Claim\n(54956.95) i Claimant Mohamed Mahama Agency Claimed Against :\nCity of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Anticipated\nLitigation, Council received a briefing from Legal Counsel on a\nmatter of potential litigation; no action was taken; regarding\nLiability Claim, Council discussed the claim with Legal Counsel\nand provided direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 24, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY - -NOVEMBER 17, 2009 -7:31 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 12:27 a.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers / Commissioner deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(09-477 CC/09-52 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand CIC Meeting held on November 3, 2009 and the Special CIC\nMeeting held on November 4, 2009.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(09-478 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance\nAmending Municipal Code by Adding Subsection 30-17 (Density\nBonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning Districts and\nRegulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Allow\nDensity Bonus Units and Incentives or Concessions to Developers\nthat Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an\nElement of Their Residential Development Project. Amended and\nintroduced: and\n(09-53 - CIC) Resolution No. 09-163, \"Amending Resolution No. 04-\n127 to Reduce the Inclusionary Unit Requirement Policy for\nResidential Developments in the Business and Waterfront and West\nEnd Community Improvement Project Areas from at Least 25% to at\nLeast 15%. \" Adopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether reducing the\ninclusionary unit requirement from 25% to 15% would provide\nlonger term affordable housing.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 25, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded the reduction would not\nprovide longer term housing but would make the inclusionary\nhousing requirement within the City consistent; stated applying\nthe 25% inclusionary requirement would automatically entitle\napplicants to the density bonus requirements plus concessions,\nincentives, and waivers; staff did not want density bonus\nconcessions and waivers to be automatically triggered; by\nrolling the percentage back to 15%, the applicant would have to\nmake more affordable units within the development.\nIn response to Councilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquiry, the\nSupervising Planner responded any inclusionary housing units\ncount towards the density bonus units; staff does not want to\ncreate a situation where someone would automatically be entitled\nto a density bonus plus concessions and waivers.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated that she likes the idea of caps;\nperhaps the Planning Board should be requested to look at\nparticular items.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan stated one item would be open\nspace; visuals should be provided in order to show what projects\nwould actually entail.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated visuals could be provided.\nMayor/Chair Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nProponents (In favor of ordinance) : Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association (PSBA) i Christopher Buckley, Alameda\nArchitectural Preservation Society; Jamie Keating, Trailhead\nVentures, LLC .\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor/Chair Johnson closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated that he would like\nto send the ordinance back [to the Planning Board] ; the two most\nimportant points are: 1) separating pure residential from other\nprojects; 2) setback and height caps cannot be arbitrary or non-\ntechnical; Fire Department pictures show the hazard that could\nbe used as the rationale for setting a cap; if the ordinance is\nsent back to the Planning Board, it should be time critical so\nthat the process can be finished.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 26, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated the ordinance would return\nto the Council no later than the first meeting in February the\ndesire seems to be to apply caps and limits on concessions and\nincentives to residential properties and not mixed used\ncommercial properties; questioned whether the Council/Commissior\nwould move forward on an ordinance tonight with language added\nto Section 30-17.9 that states \"for commercially zoned or mixed\nuse properties;\" stated the Planning Board would review\nresidential properties and staff would come back with an\namendment to the density bonus regulations.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the northern waterfront\nproject included height limits; inquired how height limits would\nbe reconciled if the density bonus ordinance includes height\nlimits.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded specific plan or planned\ndevelopment amendments would be required for modifications to\nprojects with adopted regulations for specific sites.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated requirements for fire access should\nbe reviewed if backyards are developed; that she is not sure if\na fire truck could access the backyard of the monster house on\nBriggs Avenue.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated staff has\nsome thoughts regarding the issue.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore inquired whether any new\nbuildings are required to have sprinklers, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCounci lmember/Commissione: Matarrese stated residential caps\nshould be technical, not arbitrary.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam moved introduction of the\nordinance with the suggested modification on page 13.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor/Chair Johnson clarified that the\nresidential portion would go back to the Planning Board.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-11-17", "page": 27, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe Joint Meeting at 12:50 a.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nNovember 17, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-11-17.pdf"}