{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -DECEMBER 1, 2009- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL\nPresent : louncilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(09-479 ) Mayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no.\n09-480] and the Ordinance Approving and Authorizing a 66-Year Lease\n[paragraph no. 09-485] were pulled from the agenda after the\nConsent Calendar, the agenda items were addressed in the following\norder : Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph no. 09-487] ;\nRecommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project List\n[paragraph no. 09-488] ; Public Hearing [paragraph no. 09-489] and\nPolice Department Deployment Plan [paragraph no. 09-490].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Setting the 2010\nRegular City Council Meeting Dates [paragraph no. 09-483] and Final\nPassage [paragraph no. 09-486 were removed from the Consent\nCalendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam 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(09-480 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on November 17, 2009 Not heard.\n( *09-481) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,756,425.08.\n(*09-482) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to\nApply for a Permit from the Dredged Material Management Office for\nDredging of the Southshore Lagoons, Approve a Contract with CLE\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 2, "text": "Engineering, Inc. , and Authorize CLE to Represent the City of\nAlameda on All Matters Pertaining to Dredging Permit Applications.\nAccepted.\n(09-483) - Resolution No. 14403, \"Setting the 2010 Regular City\nCouncil Meeting Dates. Adopted.\nVice Mayor deHaan noted that 7:00 p.m. would be the start time for\nthe 2010 Regular City Council Meetings.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-484) Resolution No. 14404, \"Authorizing the Destruction of\nSpecified Unnecessary Records of the Human Resources Department. \"\nAdopted.\n(09-485) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing a 66-\nYear Lease with the Water Emergency Transportation Authority, as\nLessee, and the City of Alameda, as Lessor, for a Ferry Maintenance\nand Operations Facility at Alameda Point. Not heard.\n(09-486) Ordinance No. 3012, \"Amending the Municipal Code by Adding\nSection 30-17 (Density Bonus Regulations) to Article I (Zoning\nDistricts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations)\nto Allow Density Bonus Units and Potential Waivers to Developers\nthat Voluntarily Provide for Affordable Housing Units as an Element\nof Their Residential Development Project and Providing Incentives\nand Concessions for Residential Development Projects in Commercial\nor Mixed Use Zones. Finally passed.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nSpeakers Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda Christopher\nBuckley, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; Robb Ratto,\nPark Street Business Association; Kathy Moehring, West Alameda\nBusiness Association.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested clarification of direction given\nregarding caps.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board would\nestablish caps for incentives and concessions; stated the caps\nwould be brought back to Council for consideration; Council has\nrequested staff to provide drawings in order to show how the caps\nwould be applied.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether amendments would come back to\nCouncil, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the residential portion would come\nback to Council after review by the Planning Board, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam moved final passage of ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-487)\nResolution Nos. 14405, \"Appointing Ethel Warren as a\nMember of the Commission on Disability Issues. Adopted;\n(09-487 A) Resolution No. 14406, \"Appointing Clifton J. Smith as a\nMember of the Housing Commission.\" Adopted and\n(09-487 - B) Resolution No. 14407, \"Appointing Samantha J. Chin as a\nmember of the Youth Advisory Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented\ncertificates of appointment to Ms. Warren and Mr. Smith.\n(09-488) - Recommendation to Amend the Measure WW Proposed Project\nList to Include a $2 Million Grant to the Boys & Girls Club for the\nCompletion of Construction of Its Youth Development Center in\nAccordance with the Terms and Conditions Outlined Herein.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nDave Collins, East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) Assistant\nGeneral Manager, stated Bond Counsel's opinion would not be\nprovided until early next year; the District has concerns regarding\nprivate business use or a non-profit holding title; guidelines\nshould be complete in time to review applications received by March\n31, 2010 the project's eligibility is doubtful; urged all parties\nnot to make binding financial commitments on presumptions or\nassumptions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 4, "text": "non-profit; Counsel has concerns that the tax exempt status of the\nbonds could be jeopardized by allowing a non-profit to construct\nand hold title to a facility.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Measure WW has specific stipulations for\nthe East Bay Zoological Society which has a non-profit 501 (c) (3)\nstatus and runs the Oakland Zoo; non-profit entities have specific\nfunding allocations; the Zoological Society plans on using funds to\nexpand the existing animal clinic; inquired whether a certain\namount of funding allocated for private, non-profit use would be\npart of the criteria to determine whether or not the bonds could\nstill preserve tax exempt status; further inquired whether the\nallotment to the East Bay Zoological Society has consumed a\nsignificant portion of the [non-profit] allotment and whether\ncities should submit applications on behalf of non-profits, such as\nSan Leandro has done for a swimming center, because of competition\nfor the allotment.\nMr. Collins responded the Oakland Zoo is named in the Measure; the\nEast Bay Zoological Society is the operator of the facility; the\ntitle to the facility is in governmental hands the private\nbusiness use limitation is a percentage of overall bonds sold and\nendures for the life of the bonds counsel wants to avoid a\nsituation where an allotment would be used up and would no longer\nbe available.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the East Bay Zoological Society\noccupies the building on land granted by the Knowland Trust to the\nCity of Oakland.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Collins responded that he would need to contact the Oakland Zoo\nregarding ownership, which he understands is held by a governmental\nentity; information would be available regarding underlying title,\nownership of the asset, reversionary criteria, and other factors\nonce an application is received; speculation would be premature;\nthe Board may preclude funds being used by non-profits for\nconstruction of facilities, but not operation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether any information would be\navailable before the application is submitted, to which Mr. Collins\nresponded in the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the loan mechanism has been\nreviewed.\nMr. Collins responded in the affirmative; stated that he has\nserious concerns that the proposed project would be eligible.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Boys & Girls Club has been\ninformed that the project might not be eligible, to which Mr.\nCollins responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Oakland Zoo and Zoological Society\nare in the same position as the Boys & Girls Club; applications\nshould be submitted sooner rather than later if there is a pool of\nmoney that could go to a non-profit 501 (c) (3) corporation.\nMr. Collins stated the Oakland Zoo received funding from Measure\nAA; the Oakland Zoo was named as a recipient in Measure WW; the\nOakland Zoo has a different standing than other entities the bond\nindenture precludes the distribution of funds directly from the\nDistrict to non-profits. non-profits should not apply to the\nDistrict because applications would not be accepted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a few meetings ago, EBRPD\nrepresentatives advised Council that the project could be eligible;\nthe City is not at risk one way or another; the City's allotment\nwill still be available.\nMr. Collins stated that he concurs with Councilmember Gilmore\nEBRPD needs to provide very clear guidelines regarding the\neligibility of projects.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether EBRPD couldn't provide any\nguarantee that the guidelines would be available before the\nsubmission point, to which Mr. Collins responded in the\naffirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated EBRPD representatives advised Council that the\nproject appeared to be eligible [at a previous Council meeting];\nstated the Boys & Girls Club relied on said information; inquired\nwhen the Boys & Girls Club would be advised of eligibility.\nMr. Collins responded EBRPD couldn't pre-commit to the eligibility\nof the project until an application is submitted and reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be a lesson for the future;\nguidelines should come out earlier so that everyone is informed of\nthe rules ahead of time.\nMr. Collins stated EBRPD would ensure that the issue is addressed\nas soon as possible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether EBRPD has a yes/no\ndecision tree.\nMr. Collins responded guidelines are adopted by the Board of\nDirectors and include hard and fast issues as well as areas of land\ntenure; a specific checklist is not available; guidelines clarify a\nlot of situations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the key point is whether\nthe project would be considered a private use that is defined as a\nnon-governmental entity holding title, to which Mr. Collins\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the situation is very unfortunate.\nmore pubic-private partnerships will evolve as dollars become\nscarceri entities are trying to leverage every dollar to provide\nmore services.\nMr. Collins stated in 1988, most park and recreation facilities\nwere owned and operated by local entities now cities are unable to\nfund facilities and are using more partnerships.\nCouncilmember Tam stated other cities are considering partnerships\nfor capital facilities; Council is being asked to examine the\nmerits of placing the Boys & Girls Club recreation facility on the\nCity's priority list; staff would submit the application on behalf\nof the Boys & Girls Club once the project is on the priority list;\ninquired how soon EBRPD would let the City know whether the\napplication is eligible and accepted, to which Mr. Collins\nresponded within sixty days after March 31, 2010.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how the Oakland Zoo was written into\nMeasure WW, to which Mr. Collins responded the Oakland Zoo is named\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 7, "text": "as a specific entity.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Oakland Zoo has standing based\non the fact that it was named in the ballot measure.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is curious about the Oakland\nZoo having standing to expand a veterinary clinic simply because it\nis named in the bond.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would not have voted for a\nveterinary clinic expansion.\nMr. Collins stated that he is not sure whether an application was\nsubmitted; the Oakland Zoo was named in the Measure.\nMayor Johnson stated EBRPD may end up with more requests for\nspecific allocations such as the Oakland Zoo.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the funding stream is in place\nnow.\nMr. Collins responded the funding stream is modeled as a $15\nmillion issue every two years; stated [the amount of funding a\ncity requests is not limited eligible projects submitted by March\nshould be funded.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether another bonding is anticipated\nwithin another year, to which Mr. Collins responded most likely two\nyears.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether concerns would be addressed in\nthe next bond issue, to which Mr. Collins responded the standard\nwas set by the Measure voted on; allocations cannot be modified.\nProponents: Rich Sherrat, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Burnham\nMatthews, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Nancy O'Mally, Alameda Boys &\nGirls Club; Former Mayor Bill Withrow, Peralta Colleges; Nick\nCabral, Alameda; Sally Rudloff, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Dr.\nJeptha Boone, Alameda; Gig Codiga, Boys & Girls Club; Barry Parker,\nAlameda: Don Sherrat, Alameda; Scott Kerns, Alameda; John Hamilton;\nRon Matthews, Alameda Little League and Babe Ruth; Tom Sullivan,\nAlameda Boys & Girls Club; Bob Brown; Steve Pressy, Alameda; Alysse\nCastro, Island High School; Dave McCarver, Alameda; Patricia\nMarillo, Alternatives in Action; Karen Bay, Alameda (submitted\ndocument) ; Art Lenhardt, Alameda; and Robert McGinnis.\nOpponents Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Joseph\nWoodard, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman, Alameda; Rebecca Redfield,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 8, "text": "Estuary Park Action Committee (submitted petition) ; and Rosemary\nMcNally, Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated no one is questioning the value of the\nBoys & Girls Club; everyone understands the financial problems\nwithin the City; the concern is with what the District has done in\ngiving hope that the project could happen; that he has concerns\nwith the City being a loan broker questioned how the Boys & Girls\nClub could transition knowing that $2 million might not be\navailable; stated the City might be in a better position to be\nsupportive with different funding at a later point; the issue is\nnot about the worthiness of the Boys & Girls Club, but is about\navailable funding.\nMayor Johnson stated the project should be given a chance and\nshould be sent on to EBRPD for consideration; Council has not\nreceived an opinion from Bond Counsel; the Boys & Girls Club serves\nall residents.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the way the process has unfolded is\nextremely unfortunate; a lot of turmoil has been created within the\ncommunity; Boys & Girls Club programs are not just about the\nchildren but about benefits parents receive; the project is\nworthwhile; staff believes that the Boys & Girls Club has the\nability to replay the loan; placing the project on the list is no\nrisk to the City; money will still be available to the City if the\nBoys & Girls Club does not qualify; $1 million of the $2 million\nwould come back to the City; $500,000 of the second million is\nmoney that the City would have spent for Woodstock Park; the City\nwould be spending $500,0 for an $8 million project that would\nbenefit all of Alameda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of submitting the project to\nEBRPD for ultimate determination.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the\nlevel of public participation; she is persuaded that the project\nshould be placed on the list of priority projects to allow EBRPD to\nmake a decision; the project would create union jobs, leverage\n$500,000 planned for the West End to get an $8 million facility,\naddress past inequities in how the City proportionately distributed\npark bond funds, allow for adaptive reuse of schools on public\nlands, and enhance programs and services that the community needs\nto serve the City's youth; budget cuts have resulted from State\ntakings School Resource Officers have been reduced at the high\nschools the Boys & Girls Club has a direct correlation in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 9, "text": "ability to reduce juvenile crime rates; the project would continue\nthe good precedent of partnering with non-profit organizations\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the project is very worthy; the City\nhas programmed over $363,000 to the Boys & Girls Club; Council\nneeds to move in the direction of utilizing discretionary funds for\npublic-private partnerships; Measure WW money is no more\ndiscretionary than Measure O money; both measures are voter driven\nmandates; that he will vote no because voter mandated funds are not\ndiscretionary.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he has concerns with the loan [being\napproved by EBRPD] the City should identify the projects that be\ncompleted using returned loan money up front.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City should have successful\napplications regardless of what happens with the Boys & Girls Club\napplication; the City does not have the luxury of waiting six years\nto spend the money favorable construction costs have a small\nwindow.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the initial list needs to be\nrevisited in terms of maintenance versus capital projects.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the process needs to be quick\nbecause of the current, favorable construction costs.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the entity has to front the money and then\nget reimbursed through the funding; the appeal of the Boys & Girls\nClub is that funding would be available to start payments now; the\nCity does not have capital funds to pay up front.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter is a cash flow issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted substantial money was saved on the\nWilver \"Willie\" Stargell project.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Gilmore, Tam, and Mayor Johnson\n-\n3.\nNoes : Councilmembers deHaan and Matarrese - 2.\n(09-489) - Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinances\n:\nAmending Ordinance No. 1277 N.S. to Rezone Approximately 48 Acres\nLocated at 1501 and 1523 Buena Vista Avenue (Encinal Terminals and\nDel Monte Building). APNs 072-038200200, 072-038200400, 072-\n038200300, 072-038201000, 072-038200500, 072-038200900, 072- -\n038300100, 072-038300200 and 072-038300300, from M-2 General\nIndustrial\n(Manufacturing) District to M-X Mixed Use Zoning\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 10, "text": "Designation, and Amending Municipal Code Section 30-4.20 of Article\nI\n(Zoning Districts and Regulations) of Chapter XXX Development\nRegulations) by Adding Subsection 30-4.20(j) to the M-X Mixed Use\nPlanned Development District Zoning Regulations to Allow for\nApplication for Interim Use Permits Under Certain Conditions.\nIntroduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff has started to work\nwith the property owner on the Master Plan, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether lagoons would be part of the\nplan.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the negative; stated\nsaid plan was very costly; the property owner's representative is\nin full support of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated many proposals have been submitted;\nquestioned what would be the long-term use; stated the plan is to\nreutilize the building.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded any use would need to come\nto the Planning Board and Council for approval and would need to be\na long-term, permanent use, not just for one year; stated the idea\nis to facilitate the redevelopment of the site.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinances.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how she should answer Oakland Chinatown\nmerchant concerns regarding the possibility of an Asian\nmarketplace.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the property owner is not\npursuing the matter at this point.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to encourage\ncompetitive businesses.\nMayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Matarrese;\ntoday she toured the Harbor Bay Business Park Semifreddi's\nlocation, which was previously in Emeryville.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 11, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the property has run the gamete from\nhaving a large, upscale market to a Ranch 99 style supermarket; the\nCity has limited opportunities for supermarkets.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the action tonight solves a very\nimmediate, short-term problem; that she has met with the property\nowner; the City's approach on redevelopment is to take large\ncritical mass sites and work with property owners to create the\nright vision not dissimilar to the Civic Center Master Plan; the\nCity's job is to facilitate redevelopment and work toward creating\na Master Plan; the property owner is willing to help pay for the\nstudy; the City is able to go out with a Request for Proposal (RFP)\nfor the vision under redevelopment law; the property owner has\nparticipation rights the Community Improvement Commission will\nhave input into the site's vision.\nVice Mayor deHaan noted the visioning process intertwines with the\nNorthern Waterfront, Alameda Landing, and Alameda Point.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-490 - ) Police Department Deployment Plan\nThe Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that ranges be provided in\naddition to average response times.\nThe Police Chief stated ranges would be provided; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson requested an explanation of how the Police Department\nresponds to calls; stated the Fire Department responds the same way\nto every call, which put people at risk.\nThe Police Chief stated officers respond Code 3 to life-threatening\nemergencies; otherwise, traffic laws are obeyed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many officers respond to\nPriority 1 calls versus Priority 2 and 3 calls.\nThe Police Chief responded the number of officers on scene depends\nupon the nature of the call; stated calls are triaged by the Call\nCenter as well as supervisors; two units are initially assigned to\na robbery in progress; other units may respond to look for escape\nroutes.\nCouncilmember Tam questioned whether officers on patrol within the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 12, "text": "vicinity are dispatched; inquired whether response time is\ndetermined from the time that dispatch receives the call to the\ntime that the first officer or the full compliment of officers\narrives on the scene.\nThe Police Chief responded response times are determined from the\nfirst dispatch call received until the first officer arrives at the\nscene; stated calls are assigned to officers in specific sectorsi\nan officer closer to a call will answer the call.\nCouncilmember Tam stated fire fighters need time to put on gear;\ninquired whether patrol cars and officers are fully equipped.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated a specialized\nofficer would be assigned to a call where additional, specialized\nequipment is needed, such as a Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT)\ncall.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether an officer would be cleared of a\nPriority 3 call to respond to a Priority 1 call.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated determining\nwhether or not to clear an officer is a supervisory decision.\nMayor Johnson stated police officers do not need the turnout time\nthat fire fighters need.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated police officers multi-task. -\nThe Police Chief stated police officers multi-task very well;\npolice officers are trained to handle any type of call; continued\nthe presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a beat officer is responsible for\nabandoned vehicles.\nThe Police Chief responded beat officers and parking technicians\nare responsible.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired why Priority 4 response times are better\nthan Priority 3 response times.\nThe Police Chief responded many Priority 4 calls involve abandoned\nvehicles that can be immediately handled by parking technicians.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Police Chief stated\nPriority 1 calls totaled 282 in 2008 and 179 up to August 2009\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what percentage Priority 1 calls are of\noverall calls, to which the Police Chief responded that he would\nprovide said information; continued the presentation.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Police Chief stated\nSector 1 covers the area between the former Base and Eighth Street;\nSector 2 covers Eighth Street to Willow Avenue Sector 3 covers\nWillow East Sector 4 covers the Bay Farm Island area; Sector 5\ncovers the former Base.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether each sector has the same amount\nof force, to which the Police Chief responded in the negative;\ncontinued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated response times are amazing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the Special Duty\nUnit tracking parolees and sex offenders; the effort sends the\nmessage that parolees and sex offenders need to behave in Alameda;\ntracking should be City policy Council needs to be informed if\ntracking efforts are jeopardized.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether School Resource Officers are\ninvolved in resolving issues regarding strangers on campuses.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative stated patrol\nofficers are also involved; efforts are coordinated with a captain.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a captain decides whether to\nsend a school resource officer.\nThe Police Chief responded calls are initially handled through the\ncommunication center and then coordinated through a school resource\nofficer and patrol officers.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Councilmembers from other cities are\nenvious of the Alameda Police Department commended police officers\nand deployment methods for the wonderful reputation.\nMayor Johnson stated the Police Department has fewer officers this\nyear.\nThe Police Chief stated difficult deployment decisions have been\nmade; changes have not been made within the patrol force.\nMayor Johnson stated excellent response times show good management ;\nresources are deployed in a very effective and efficient manner.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 14, "text": "The Police Chief stated staff is stepping up and doing the job.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-491) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the\nHousing Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Ian M. Couwenberg for appointment to the\nHousing Commission.\n(09-492) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended the League\nof California Cities Leadership workshop the League has forged a\ncoalition with the California Alliance for Jobs and the California\nTransit Association to secure authorization from the Attorney\nGeneral to place two measures on the November 2010 ballot to start\nto collect one million signatures; the tentative title of the\nmeasure is Local Taxpayer Public Safety and Transportation\nProtection Act of 2010; the proposed initiative would close the\nloopholes to prevent the State from borrowing public transit money,\nProposition 1A money, and redevelopment funds the California\nForward Group is a government reform organization that is putting\ntwo measures on the ballot in November; one measure would lower the\nvoting threshold to a simple majority; the other measure would\ninstitute a new countywide sales tax; Repair California is also\nputting initiatives on the November ballot that would implement a\nvoter called Constitutional Convention: the League leadership has\nencouraged cities to hold off on taking a position on the other\ninitiatives until the issue can be vetted through policy committees\nand legislative analysts.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, Councilmember Tam stated\nthe League is involved with the Local Taxpayer Public Safety and\nTransportation Protection Act of 2020; the League's first and top\npriority is to focus on protecting local revenues and getting a\nmillion signatures.\nMayor Johnson stated the California Forward group is not talking\nabout restructuring the tax system.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the State legislature and Governor signed\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 15, "text": "a water bond in the amount of $11. 4 billion that would be placed on\nthe November 2010 ballot; the League's fiscal analysts have\nfundamental problems with the bond because a $21 billion budget\ndeficit is projected for next year; adding more debt that would\nrequire a $700,000 payment per year would not be responsible\nbecause funding would be taken away from State mandated programs,\nespecially at the local level. securitization was discussed;\nAlameda is one of 408 cities that participated in efforts to try\nand borrow back money that the State borrowed; the League and\nCalifornia State Association of Counties sponsored the Joint Powers\nAuthority to help facilitate securitization; the plan is to get\nhalf of the money on January 15, 2010 and the remaining half on May\n3, 2010.\nMayor Johnson stated the State is borrowing money from people's\npaychecks by increasing tax withholding to 10%.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the budget was passed using a number\nof accounting tricks.\nThe Interim City Manager stated next year's deficit will be $20\nbillion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the State would look to local\ngovernment to close the budget gap.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has reduced the work force\nsignificantly; the State has only implemented furloughs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a balanced budget would take five to\nfifteen years; a furlough is a promise that things will get better\nand does not fix anything.\nThe Interim City Manager stated no one has factored in the State\ncost for PERS, which is in the billions of dollars.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the ballot measure is a top priority for\nthe League the issue has polled positively at over 70%; lowering\nthe voting threshold to a simple majority has not done as well.\n(09-493) Councilmember Tam stated that she and staff met some\nLakewood, Washington City employees at the Emergency Management\ntraining in Emmitsburg last July; requested that the Police\nDepartment express Council's condolences and outrage with the\nrecent assassination of four Lakewood Police Officers.\nThe Police Chief stated a letter is prepared to go out tomorrow.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-12-01", "page": 16, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the suspect was commuted from a life sentence;\npeople need to respond to the State's plan for early release of\nparolees.\nThe Police Chief stated the California Chiefs Association is\nworking closely with the Governors office to come up with\nalternative plans that can meet the State's needs as well as\nprotect public safety.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the League of California Cities has\ntaken a position on the matter, to which the Police Chief responded\nin the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council can individually send condolences\nto the City of Lakewood.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular meeting at 11:14 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\n16\nDecember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-12-01.pdf"}