{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 16, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:36 p.m. Councilmember Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-061) Mayor Johnson announced that the Sunshine Task Force [paragraph number\n10-074 would be addressed after the Resolution of Appointment [paragraph number\n10-073]: ; that regarding the Joint Meeting, the Chamber of Commerce Contract\nAmendment [paragraph number 10-06 CIC] would be continued; and Sun Cal has\nwithdrawn both requests [paragraph number 10-082 CC/ARRA/10-08 CIC however,\npublic comment would be permitted on the matter.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-062) Proclamation Declaring the Month of February 2010 as Good Government\nMonth.\nMayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Kate Quick and Anne Spenier\nof the League of Women Voters.\nMs. Spenier thanked Council for the proclamation; invited everyone to the showing of\nIron Jawed Angles on Sunday at I:00 p.m. at the Alameda High School Little Theater.\nMayor Johnson stated that she hopes the League of Women Voters will attend Council\ndiscussions regarding open session versus closed session; Council's intent is to err on\nthe side of openness.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Consent to Assignment of Lease [paragraph\nnumber 10-065 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 2, "text": "(*10-063) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Public Utilities Board Meeting\nand the Regular City Council Meeting held on February 3, 2010. Approved.\n(*10-064) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,314,561.14.\n(10-065) Recommendation to Approve Consent to Assignment of Lease and Estoppel\nCertificate Between the City of Alameda, Ballena Isle Marina, L.P., and CNL Income\nBallena Marina, LLC.\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the public needs to know what is transpiring; inquired\nwhether CNL Income Ballena Marina, LLC would be the leaseholder.\nThe Economic Development Director responded CNL would be the new lessee; stated\nCNL knows that the City has concerns with property conditions; immediate plans are in\nplace to make commercial building improvements.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether established timetables would change.\nThe Economic Development Director responded in the negative; stated the trigger has\nnot been hit to start extensions; extension terms would not begin unless investments\nare made.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether CNL is planning on making improvements over\nand above existing requirements.\nThe Economic Development Director responded that she is not sure; stated\nrequirements are quite extensive and include complete reconstruction of the entire\nMarina.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated reporting back on the plans would be nice.\nThe Economic Development Director stated that she feels the City is assigning the\nLease to a company that does the right thing for the type of property.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated CNL's portfolio is quite interesting.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether CNL would take over the terms of the existing Lease,\nwhich do not have milestones, to which the Economic Development Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether improvements have been discussed.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the City does not have any leverage\nwith the existing terms but has leverage regarding future extensions.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the current owner of the Lease is selling the Lease.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the current owner is assigning the\nLease; stated the City can only review whether a company is qualified and capable.\nMayor Johnson stated fifty-year leases have been very bad for the City; assignment\ncannot reasonably be withheld.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council is reviewing tideland leases; receiving\ninvestments on properties and ensuring that assets are maintained for the life of the\nLease is important and is how income is generated, which is another goal; the twenty-\nfive year Lease has seven years of leverage.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the only criteria the City can use to determine the\nassignment of the Lease and Estoppel Certificate is to determine whether CNL is a\nqualified, capable corporation; part of the determination involves viewing the history,\nfinancials, and holdings but does not involve the [Company's] potential to make\nimprovements or address maintenance.\nThe Economic Development Director stated determinations about said activities have\nbeen wrapped into the qualified and capable assessment; CNL has demonstrated it has\nsignificant investments to upgrade facilities; Emeryville is a good example; CNL has the\nfinancial capability and history of rejuvenating and revitalizing resorts, waterfront\nproperties, marinas, and hotels in other locations; Almar Properties is a qualified,\ncapable property manager.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated CNL could sell the Lease to someone else, which is of\nconcern but is probably not the intent.\nThe Economic Development Director stated after 2007 Lease renegotiations, the\ncurrent lessee put commercial property up for sale and would have used the money to\nstart reconstruction at the Marina; then, the economy took a dive.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*10-066) Recommendation to Award a First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount\nof $50,000, Including Contingencies, to Bellecci & Associates, for Engineering\nConstruction Support for the Webster Street/Wilver Willie Stargell Avenue Intersection\nProject, No. P.W. 10-08-26. Accepted.\n(*10-067) Resolution No.14421, \"Authorizing Open Market Negotiations of a Contract\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter For the Alameda Harbor Bay\nBarge Replacement Project, No. P.W. 06-09-19, and Authorize the Interim City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 4, "text": "Manager to Enter Into Such an Agreement.\" Adopted.\n(*10-068) Resolution No. 14422, \"Approving the Revised Memorandum\nof\nUnderstanding Between the Alameda Fire Managers Association and the City of\nAlameda for the Period commencing January 6, 2008 and Ending February 27, 2010.'\nAdopted.\n(*10-069) Resolution No. 14423, \"Approving a Request to the California Public\nEmployees' Retirement System Board of Administration for an Employment Extension\nRequest per Government Code Section 21221(h) for the Temporary Employment of\nEvelyn C. Leung.\" Adopted.\n(*10-070) Resolution No.14424, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Execute the\nGrant Contract Between the State of California Department of Boating and Waterways\nand Alameda Police Department.\" Adopted.\n(*10-071) Resolution No.14425, \"Declaring Canvass of Returns and Results of the\nSpecial Municipal Election Held on Tuesday, February 2, 2010.' Adopted.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-072) Economic Development Department Relocation.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Economic Development Department would be\nrelocating to the first floor of City Hall on February 22; Housing Division staff would\nrelocate to the Housing Authority; Public Works will be the only department left at City\nHall West.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated Information Technology would be relocating to the\nRecreation and Park Department.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-073) Resolution No. 14426, \"Appointing Bill Delaney as a Member of the Recreation\nand Park Commission.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Delaney with a\ncertificate of appointment.\n(10-074) Recommendation to Appoint Members to the Sunshine Issue Spotting Task\nForce.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 5, "text": "The Deputy City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City is very fortunate to have knowledgeable members\nfrom the community; having the public advise what needs to come out of the process is\nimportant; that she wants to be clear about Council expectations; no formal action has\nbeen taken regarding scope and direction; staff resources are tight; utilizing the public\nshould be maximized by having the Task Force develop recommendations, issue spot\nand come back to Council directly without staff review; the City Attorney's office would\nprovide some guidance on what is expected within the Brown Act; the process should\nbe open rather than having private meetings.\nMayor Johnson stated Council's intent is to have meetings noticed.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Task Force should have the authority and discretion to\ndetermine how the Task Force would be formulated; Council should not mandate\nissues.\nMayor Johnson stated Council can have the Task Force review specific issues and the\nTask Force could look at other issues too; having staff available would be helpful.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated that she would be attending the meetings, along with\nrepresentatives from City Clerk's and City Attorney's offices.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Task Force should report findings and\nrecommendations for solutions to Council.\nThe City Attorney stated a task force is a body that reports to the City Manager and is\nnot an advisory group; prior direction from Council was to create a task force for issue\nspotting, be limited to three meetings, and include the Deputy City Manager; meetings\ncan be public; the Task Force would not be a Brown Act committee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the intent is to have public meetings; that he views\nthe Task Force the same as the Fiscal Sustainability Committee, which reported\nfindings directly to Council.\nThe City Attorney stated the Fiscal Sustainability Committee was an advisory committee\nand was assigned to review a limited issue and report findings back to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not see any difference [between the\nSunshine Task Force and Fiscal Sustainability Committee].\nThe City Attorney stated that she is pointing out that the Task Force's assignment would\ninvolve staff work; normally, findings and recommendations come back to the City\nManager and then to Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council's intention is to have the body report directly\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 6, "text": "back to Council; the difference between a task force and an advisory committee might\nhave been misunderstood; the intent is to have the body review the list generated by\nCouncil, get citizen input, and report directly to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated the Task Force would not be expected to type the report.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she assumes the first step is coming up with a list\nbefore doing the paperwork [drafting ordinances, etc].\nMayor Johnson stated the intent is not to reinvent the wheel but to find model provisions\nfrom other cities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the committee needs to spot issues, come up with\nsolutions, synthesize and prioritize the list, and come back to Council with\nrecommendations; noticing the meetings is important to ensure that the public has the\nopportunity to attend.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the meetings can be noticed; that she is more\ninterested in the work product; the committee and staff might be doing [unnecessary]\nheavy lifting if work is done before Council gives policy direction.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would like the Task Force to do the heavy lifting.\nMayor Johnson stated that she disagrees; Council has its list; the Task Force might\ncome up with additional items; the Task Force is to come up with a list of issues, which\ncould include Council's list; staff would find models; that she does not see why the Task\nForce should be burdened with analysis; Council can decide what to address and then\nput policies in place.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Task Force should prioritize the list; Council has a\ndifferent view on how things work compared to citizens; things that Council might view\nas a problem, might not be a problem for citizens.\nMayor Johnson stated that recommended priorities can be brought to Council and\nCouncil can change the order of the priorities.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she does not want to have a list of issues with no\nranking; Council can rearrange the priorities.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council could change the Task Force to an advisory\ncommittee; that he sees no problem with keeping the body as a Task Force; that he\nreserves Council oversight; Council wanted the Task Force to only have three meetings\nand have the right input and oversight.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff worked with the Fiscal Sustainability Committee to\nensure that everything was technically correct but did not censor anything; a laundry list\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 7, "text": "could come back to Council for prioritization before paperwork is done.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council could give direction on what to address after\nthree Task Force meetings; that he expects direction from the committee to reflect\ncommunity issues; Council can give direction to change priorities; stated that he has no\nproblem moving forward.\nSpeakers: Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of appointing the Sunshine Task Force with the\nrecommended appointees in the staff report, with Jeff Cambra as the facilitator; as part\nof the recorded action and direction: the Task Force would make a recommendation to\nthe Council concerning any proposals and solutions regarding open government and\naccess to information; the Task Force should have assistance from the City Attorney's\noffice and staff in advising them on legal issues and requirements; the final\nrecommendation that the Task Force makes to the City Council will be no later than\nJune 30, 2010, whether it takes three or four meetings; the number of meetings is up to\nthe Task Force.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested the motion be amended to include the City Clerk's\noffice.\nCouncilmember Tam accepted the amendment to include the City Clerk's office.\nMayor Johnson requested that the motion include that the role of staff is to provide\nadvice on technical issues and that the Task Force should include the five items Council\ndescribed; the Task Force can look at additional items, but should definitely include the\nfive items.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion includes prioritization of items.\nCouncilmember Tam responded in the affirmative; stated that she would spell out what\nshe thinks the Task Force should include; the Task Force should: spot the issues,\ndevelop recommendations, prioritize the issues, and formulate a comprehensive\nrecommendation to the Council.\nMayor Johnson inquired what Councilmember Tam means by spot issues, to which\nCouncilmember Tam responded that the issues should include the ones mentioned in\nthe staff report.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Councilmembers could provide additional items if\ndesired.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the meetings should definitely be open to the public and\nnoticed accordingly so that the public can be encouraged to attend.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 8, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the process includes bringing the Task Force's list\nback to the Council for review.\nCouncilmember Tam stated said process is not included in the motion because an\nAssistant City Manager with 28 years experience is part of the Task Force and is well\nversed.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Task Force should not waste time on 35 items if the\nCouncil disagrees with any of the issues.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated prioritization takes care of the issue; if the Task Force\nbrings back 40 items, Council could decide to only look at 20 [items].\nMayor Johnson stated Council could decide something is really important and decide to\nlook at 20, but the one [Council wants] might be 21 on the list; Council needs to help the\nTask Force with the priorities.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council would do so when the list comes back.\nMayor Johnson stated that she want to ensure that the list comes back.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the key is to make sure the Task Force brings\nrecommendations back to the Council; whether it becomes an iterative process or\nwhether in between Council wants to chime in, the Task Force members are Council\nappointees and can call and consult with Councilmembers anytime.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Tam is saying that Council can\ngive opinions anytime during the process.\nCouncilmember Tam responded Councilmembers have never been shy about giving\nopinions.\nMayor Johnson stated bringing the list back would not hold up progress at all.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred; stated the Task Force may come up with a\nrecommendation of 40 items; then, Council could decide that the Task Force needs to\ngo back to the drawing board and hold a fifth meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would rather have the Task Force come back sooner.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Mayor Johnson is suggesting reporting back to\nCouncil after the first meeting.\nMayor Johnson responded in the negative; stated maybe the Task Force could bring a\ntentative list back to the Council after the second meeting, then the Task Force can go\nwork on it [the list].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated there could be a progress report back after the first or\nsecond meeting.\nMayor Johnson concurred; stated the list could be brought back after the first meeting.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry about whether Councilmember Tam agrees\nwith proposed process, Councilmember Tam stated that she is fine including [in the\nmotion] the option of the Council providing input in the middle of the process; the Task\nForce wants to speak directly to Council and Council wants to speak directly to the Task\nForce; that she is uneasy about prescribing every part of the process; the Task Force\nmembers are representing the public, Council needs to trust the Task Force members.\nMayor Johnson stated that she wants the five items Council defined as the first five\nitems on the list.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Tam agreed to have feedback after the first\nor second meeting.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Task Force should be given a chance to meet two\ntimes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is ready to hear if there is something different\ncoming from the public; Council has to listen; the process should be allowed to work\nand have flexibility, but should not come to the end and have a surprise.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-075)\nRecommendation to Accept the Report of the Economic Development\nCommission's Business Attraction Subcommittee.\nRobert Bonta, Economic Development Commission Member, and Donna Milgram,\nformer Economic Development Commission Member, gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam thanked Ms. Milgram for the thorough research; inquired whether\nmost maritime businesses rely upon on-line resources rather than industry journals or\nword of mouth.\nMs. Milgram responded the subcommittee does not recommend specific industries;\nstated maritime was used as an example; a unified economic development strategy\ninvolves hiring a consultant to review a city's uniqueness and resources.\nMayor Johnson thanked Ms. Milgram for all the work; stated the recommendations are\nvery good; that she hopes to move forward with the recommendations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan thanked Ms. Milgram for the report; inquired whether a website\nwould be sufficient for a full range of businesses; stated Alameda is more than just\nsmall businesses.\nMs. Milgram responded the web site would give the City the ability to recruit businesses\nnationally; stated a website would include the City in the 80% [initial site selection\nprocess]; Alameda has agreed to certain things in being part of the East Bay Economic\nDevelopment Alliance; local recruitment is somewhat limited to the Agreement;\na\nwebsite would allow the City to recruit outside the area without incurring a high\nexpense.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry whether the Alameda County EDC and\nGreenbelt group are part of the resources, Ms. Milgram stated that [using said\nresources] would not be precluded in any way.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City is in the process of redesigning its website; the\nplan is very comprehensive; inquired whether the economic development portion could\nbe jump started.\nThe Economic Development Director responded the launch would be at the same time;\nstated staff has started to work with the consultant who is helping to decide what is best\nfor individual missions; the economic development website needs to switch to explain\nhow to do business and would be linked to other resources such as the Green Corridor\nAlliance or East Bay Economic Development Alliance; the economic development\nportion might take a little longer due to the complete change; staff would be able to\nupdate the website and keep it fresh all the time; permit and licensing information could\nbe made available but might not be able to be done on-line.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the City's website is being completely revamped and\nwill include having information and forms on-line; the consultant is designing the\narchitecture to ensure that people will be able to do business on-line; having a website\nthat looks coherent is important.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is the timeframe, to which the Deputy City\nManager responded the summer.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the website would have a checklist for basic permits.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded the consultant is discussion needs with\ndepartment heads or designated staff; stated that she will double check on a permit\ncheck list.\nMayor Johnson stated input is needed from the public; inquired whether Ms. Milgram\nreceived comments from potential businesses regarding complications with the permit\nprocess.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 11, "text": "Ms. Milgram responded website change recommendations are listed on page 3 of the\nreport.\nMayor Johnson stated the website should be more straightforward.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated the consultant would be provided with the report.\nMayor Johnson stated information should be obtained from the Building Department.\nThe Deputy City Manager stated that she would ensure that the loop is closed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked Ms. Milgram for focusing on web presence; stated\nthe website is the first stop when a business wants to relocate or find out something;\nthat he likes the idea of putting permits and steps to becoming a legal business on the\nwebsite; developing the website sooner is better; uniformity is a good approach and\nwould indicate that something is like rather than special for each department; that he\nhopes that what is done highlights Alameda and its businesses so that Alameda comes\nup first when searching for vintners or lab space in the Bay Area.\nMs. Milgram stated search engine optimization is a great idea to what is pre-existing;\nthat she is glad that the Deputy City Manager will share the report with the consultant\nand hopes that the template for Economic Development will be pointed out.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of accepting the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-076) Recommendation to Adopt the City of Alameda's Update of the Master Tree\nPlan.\nThe Public Works Director provided amended exhibits and gave a brief presentation;\nintroduced Charlie Lanfranco, Tanaka Design Group.\nMr. Lanfranco gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what are the guidelines for tree distance from City\ninfrastructure.\nThe Public Works Director responded guidelines are noted in the text of the large\ndocument.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the guidelines are noted in Appendix 3.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the distance from power lines is included.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 12, "text": "The City Engineer responded ground distance is included; stated pruning methods are\nbeing reviewed for power lines.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether there is a way to delineate responsibility between\na private property owner and the City.\nThe Public Works Director responded staff wants to put more information on the\nwebsite; stated staff has discussed linking information regarding property owner\nresponsibilities with the Municipal Code.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether people know that a permit is needed to prune a\nCity tree, to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has received several compliments regarding tree\npruning on Gibbons Drive.\nThe Public Works Director stated better feedback has been received than five years\nago; community meetings have paid off.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some undesirable trees have been planted in the City.\nThe Public Works Director stated approximately three years ago the Scarlet Oak was\nplanted on Gibbons Drive.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some Maple and Ginkgo trees have been planted recently.\nMayor Johnson stated Maple and Ginkgo trees are not necessarily bad but diversity is\nneeded.\nThe Public Works Director stated three foot wide planter strips are a concern; staff has\nlearned what type of trees raise sidewalks; the popular theory is that changing the\nspecies of the tree would take care of sidewalk replacement but is not enough; the soil\ncharacteristic is important; micro characteristics were not available prior to the report.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated past philosophy was to have the same type of trees on a\nstreet; inquired whether trees are being replaced with the same trees.\nThe City Engineer responded Central Avenue and Eighth Street are continuing to use\nmonoculture.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some streets are helter skelter; having the same trees looks\nmore pleasant.\nThe City Engineer stated neighborhood and street pallets are identified in order to\nprevent a random mix; patterns are also reviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the size of a tree matters; certain species are considered\nwhen lining the street of a new development; inquired whether things would be done\ndifferently [for new development].\nThe Public Works Director responded the intent is to use the proposed Master Street\nTree Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated Burbank Avenue needs to be added [to the monoculture list]; that\nshe likes to see uniform trees on a street but understand it's not the best way.\nMr. Lanfranco stated a lot of historic research has been done; uniform aesthetics is very\npost war; trees decline at the same time when planted at the same time.\nMayor Johnson stated some people think that fruit trees should be planted.\nMr. Lanfranco stated the tree matrix is adaptable.\nProponents: Harvey Wilson, Friends of the Alameda Forest; Michael Semler, Friends of\nthe Alameda Forest; Ani Dimusheva, Friends of the Alameda Forest; Corinne Lambden;\nand Christopher Buckley, Alameda.\nFollowing Ms. Dimusheva's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda\nForest's goal is to raise money.\nMs. Dimusheva responded Alameda Forest would like to raise money; stated Alameda\nForest is not a non-profit.\nMayor Johnson stated having Alameda Forest become a non-profit would be helpful;\nHome Depot provides Urban Forest grants.\nMs. Dimusheva stated Alameda Forest is looking into becoming a non-profit; the goal is\nto acquire an army of volunteers to find funding sources.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Alameda Forest might look into pairing with Friends of\nthe Parks which is a non-profit that works to help the park system.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the large Redwood tree on Sherman Street between\nSanta Clara and Lincoln Avenues should be addressed; the proposed plan is a big leap\nforward; a Ginkgo tree will pop up a sidewalk without the right soil.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with amended\nexhibits.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, with the caveat that Redwood trees at the\nGolf Course be reviewed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 14, "text": "Under discussion Vice Mayor deHaan stated Redwood trees at the Golf Course were\nnot the best choice; every tree will be lost if immediate steps are not taken; inquired\nabout the feedback on rubberized sidewalks.\nThe Public Works Director responded two [rubberized sidewalk] phases have been\ndone; the first product works better than the second product but is no longer made;\ncomments will be provided to the Recreation and Park Director and Planning\nDepartment.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the plan could extend to parks.\nThe Interim City Manager responded parks have larger flexibility; stated the next round\nwould focus on City facilities.\nMayor Johnson stated determining what type of trees should be planted [in parks] in the\nfuture should be reviewed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Marina Village Parkway Pine trees are sick; every\nother Pine tree along the back end of Bayport is dying.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated parks have to be treated differently.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated development requirements should also include\nshopping centers; Alameda Towne Centre has issues because of the high salt content.\nMayor Johnson stated the selection of trees was unfortunate at the Golf Course.\nCouncilmember Tam requested that the motion be amended to include some reference\nin the pretext regarding resources to help the public understand responsibilities between\npublic and private [tree maintenance].\nOn the call for the question amended motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-077) Consideration of a Hospital - City Liaison Committee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like Council to consider directing the\nInterim City Manager to set up a liaison committee between Council and the Hospital\nBoard similar to what the City has done with AC Transit and the Alameda Unified\nSchool District; having the City and Hospital work together is important as budgets get\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 15, "text": "tighter.\nMayor Johnson stated that she thinks the idea is good.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is supportive of the idea; the Health Care District is\nasking for support for seismic retrofitting; Alameda Hospital is the only hospital on the\nIsland that provides emergency services; that she would be happy to serve on the\nliaison committee.\nIn response to the Interim City Manager's inquiry, Mayor Johnson stated individuals\ncould be assigned to the committee when the item is brought back.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the matter does not need to come back to Council; that\nshe could contact the Hospital's Executive Director.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmembers should let her know if they are interested in\nserving on the liaison committee.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that his biggest concern is ensuring that the City still\nhas a hospital without continuing the tax; the Veterans Administration should be\nincluded; transport sharing opportunities are available.\nMayor Johnson stated all possibilities should be reviewed to provide necessary\nhealthcare in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of directing the formation of a liaison committee\nto address issues raised in the Council Referral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-078) Consider Including Recommendations regarding Non-Profit Organization\nOperation of Mif in the Golf Course Operating Plan.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Task Force was ready to provide a preliminary report\nnext Thursday but the meeting has been cancelled; inquired when the Request for\nProposal (RFP) would come to Council.\nThe Interim City Manager responded a report from the consultant will come to Council\non March 2; stated the RFP would probably be addressed March 16.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Council Referral could be included.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative, if there is consensus.\nSpeakers: Ashley Jones, Alameda; Norma Arnerich, Alameda Junior Golf; Jane\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 16, "text": "Sullwold, Golf Commission; Joe VanWinkle, Alameda; and Robert Sullwold, Keep the\nMif Coalition.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the consultant report addresses non-profits and\nprovides research and industry standards; the non-profit concept has become firmer\nsince the RFP was issued; Council needs to advise staff whether to pursue the idea of a\nnon-profit and review the plan.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like staff to pursue the matter; non-profits have\nstepped in when there has been an opportunity to support fields and have been very\nsuccessful; that he would like to give direction to have staff to pursue the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council gave direction on January 6 to consider a non-profit\nin the context of what will happen with the long-term plan of the Golf Course; inquired\nwhether the proposed non-profit submitted a proposal like any other entity would do;\nstated understanding how the proposal fits into the overall plan is important; without a\nproposal, Council would have a hard time providing the same diligence as in the case of\nthe Boys and Girls Club and soccer groups financial capabilities; questioned how soon\nthe proposal would be needed for the March 2 meeting.\nMr. VanWinkle stated the Business Plan has been completed; reviews are being\nconducted with outside experts; that he would be happy to go over the report with the\nInterim City Manager at an already scheduled meeting on Friday.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue needs to be reviewed in the context of the whole Golf\nCourse and not in isolation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving the Interim City Manager direction\nto spend time on the proposal in the context of the larger operation of the Golf Course.\nCouncilmember Tam requested that the motion be amended to include that Council\nwants to see an actual proposal.\nMr. VanWinkle stated the by-laws, last three years of financials, and Business Plan\nwould be provided.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether everything could be provided to Council by 5:00\np.m. on February 22, to which Mr. VanWinkle responded everything would be brought\n[to the Interim City Manager] on Friday.\nCouncilmember Gilmore clarified everything from Alameda Junior Golf and the\nconsultant report would be brought back on March 2.\nVice Mayor DeHaan seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 17, "text": "COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-079) Mayor Johnson stated Larry, the Park Street Newsstand Operator, passed\naway.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:35 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 18, "text": "SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC)\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 16, 2010- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Joint Meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Board Members/Commissioners deHaan,\nGilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10- 058 CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency negotiators: Human\nResources Director; Employee organizations: Alameda Fire Managers Association.\n(10-059 CC/ARRA/10-04 CIC) Conference with Real Property Negotiator; Property:\nAlameda Point; Negotiating Parties: City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC, SunCal, Navy; Under\nNegotiations: Price and terms of payment.\n(10-060 CC) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Joint Meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson announced that regarding Labor the Council received a briefing from its Labor\nNegotiators on the status of negotiations; no action was taken; regarding Real Property,\nthe Council/Board Members/Commission received a briefing from its Real Property\nNegotiator on the status of negotiations with SunCal in light of SunCall's submittal of the\nOptional Entitlement Application and the City's Notice of Default; the Council/Board\nMembers/Commissioners decided upon unanimous vote to agendize a discussion of\nopen session versus closed session procedures for a future agenda; regarding\nPerformance Evaluation, the matter was continued; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the Joint Meeting at\n7:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority and Community\nImprovement Commission\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 16, 2010- 7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:36 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair\nJohnson - 5.\nNote: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam arrived at\n10:38 p.m.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Chamber of Commerce Contract Amendment\n[paragraph no. 10-06 CIC would be continued to a future meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the\nremainder of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner\nTam - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number.]\n(*10-080 CC/ARRA/10-05 CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, ARRA and\nCIC Meetings Held on January 26, 2010. Approved.\n(10-06 CIC) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim Executive Director to Amend\nScope of Contract with the Alameda Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2009-2010.\nContinued to future meeting.\n(*10-081 CC/10-07 CIC) Recommendation to Approve an Amendment to the Grand\nMarina Village Affordable Housing Agreement and Authorize the Interim City\nManager/Interim Executive Director to Execute the Amendment.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(10-082 CC/ARRA/10-08 CIC) Consider SunCal's Requests to: (1) Approve an\nAddendum to the Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) between SunCal and\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n1\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 20, "text": "Alameda Requesting Modification to Certain Terms Including Extending the Term of the\nENA to July 20, 2012; and (2) Retract the Notice of Default Sent by Alameda regarding\nSunCal's Performance under the ENA.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director provided a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what was outlined in the\nletter of retraction regarding the Notice of Default, to which the Interim City\nManager/Interim Executive Director responded the letter includes that SunCal's intent is\nto pursue further discussions with the City; clarification will have to be obtained in a\nmeeting scheduled with SunCal for Thursday.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired what is the date of said\nletter, to which the Deputy City Manager responded February 12.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's further inquiry, the\nInterim City Manager/Interim Executive Director stated a January letter requested an\nENA extension; once the Notice of Default was issued, a letter [e-mail] was sent asking\nthe Mayor and City Council to override the administrative decision, which is under the\nCouncil's authority; said letter was sent last week [February 8]; then, a few days later,\nFriday afternoon [February 12], SunCal sent a second letter dealing with the Notice of\nDefault stating that they [SunCal] were withdrawing their request to have Council\noverride the Notice of Default subject to further discussions with the City.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether the letters were\nsent within one week, to which the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director\nstated it was all within a short time.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry about\nwhether there has been any dialogue [with SunCal], the Interim City Manager/Interim\nExecutive Director stated there will be an opportunity through ENA discussions this\nweek and next week to get further clarification as to what SunCal meant.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when was the original\nrequest for the two-year ENA extension, and whether the reporting out from the Closed\nSession was to defer the action.\nThe Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director responded the report out from the\nClosed Session in late January was to consider the matter after the election.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan inquired when the 30 days under the\nNotice of Default would be due, the City Attorney responded March 8.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n2\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 21, "text": "Speakers: Jim Pitzer; Mary Fetherolf, Alameda; William Smith, Alameda; Ashley Jones,\nAlameda; Rosemary McNally, Alameda; Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney,\nAlameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; and Dorothy Freeman.\nCouncilmember/Boaro Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated the City has a Contract\nwith SunCal; that he would like to see if it is appropriate to repeat the request that was\nmade a month or so ago, which is to request that SunCal lift the restrictions on\nconfidentiality that exist in the current ENA; regardless of the outcome, the process\nwould be more visible and staff would be able to communicate with the Council / Board /\nCommission and the electorate; the confidentiality cloak has not served the City well\nand he is not sure if it has served SunCal well; the request should be reiterated to\nSunCal.\nVice\nMayor/Board\nMember/Commissioner\ndeHaan\ninquired\nwhether\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese is requesting an action item at\nthe next ARRA meeting.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded that he is\nrequesting that the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director be directed to make\nthe request to SunCal to release the confidentiality restriction; moved approval [of\ndirecting the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to request SunCal to\nrelease the confidentiality restriction].\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal wrote a letter indicating that they support a more\ntransparent process.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam inquired whether\nan action is being taken or if the matter is being addressed as a\nCouncil/Board/Commission Communication.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese responded the matter is under\nthe agenda item in response to the request.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated SunCal was requesting approving an\naddendum to the ENA, including specifics about what the addendum should look like;\ngiven that the action item was to discuss that [ENA amendment], the\nCouncil/Board/Commission can make a motion and ask the Interim City\nManager/Interim Executive Director to have a discussion with SunCal regarding\namending the ENA in a different way; the suggestion [releasing confidentiality\nrestrictions] would require an amendment to the ENA; the City cannot unilaterally\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n3\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 22, "text": "choose to make SunCal's documents open to the public; SunCal would have to agree to\ndo so, which would be done by amending the ENA.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated a similar request was made\nsix months ago; inquired whether the matter is part of the public record.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded that she would have to check the record;\nthe Council/Board/Commission would have to make a motion to discuss the matter if it\nwas addressed in closed session.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated SunCal would have to\nagree to an ENA amendment to be more transparent; inquired whether SunCal's letter\nfrom last October would not have been sufficient and an ENA amendment would have\nbeen required.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated that she believes the letter proposed choosing\nitem by item what would become public record, which is not the same as lifting the\nconfidentiality provision altogether.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore inquired what lifting\nconfidentiality would look like; questioned whether negotiations between staff and\nSunCal would be done in public.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel responded the confidentiality provision in the ENA has\nto do with the documents; stated assuming SunCal agrees, the documents would\nbecome public record and it would be appropriate to talk about what is in the\ndocuments.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese inquired whether documents\nare the pro forma, business plan, etc., to which the City Attorney/Legal Counsel\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated the reason it [lifting\nconfidentiality restrictions] is so important is the City could not divulge what was in the\n$200 million cap.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she is still confused--the\nagenda item is to consider requests for ENA extension and retraction of the Notice of\nDefault; SunCal has withdrawn both requests; inquired if there is a way to take action\naside from what was noticed on the agenda.\nThe City Attorney/Legal Counsel stated the action is relying on what was noticed; the\nCouncil/Board/Commission always has authority to approve, deny or ask to do it\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n4\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-02-16", "page": 23, "text": "differently; the Council/Board/Commission can request that SunCal consider a different\namendment to the ENA, such as releasing negotiation documents.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated SunCal letters discussed withdrawing agenda items;\nSunCal does not withdraw agenda items; SunCal can just withdraw their requests; the\nagenda items stay in place.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated SunCal's letter\nindicates that they want to formally address the Notice of Default in formal discussions.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Tam stated that she would be more\ncomfortable if SunCal was given the same courtesy that they gave the City in terms of\nasking specifically what the Council/Board/Commission would like to see as an\namendment to the ENA.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Matarrese stated that his motion is to\ndirect the Interim City Manager/Interim Executive Director to ask just that [about a\nspecific ENA amendment to lift confidentiality restrictions].\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated certain things will never come\nout of closed session; however, the vast majority should be released and discussed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:09\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda\n5\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 16, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-02-16.pdf"}