{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 7, 2010- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Vice Mayor deHaan led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-399) Mayor Johnson addressed the Proclamation [paragraph no. 10-403 after the\nHospital presentation [paragraph no. 10-402].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-400) Presentation on the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) Webster\nStreet Jam Festival.\nKathy Moehring, WABA Executive Director, gave a brief presentation and invited\neveryone to attend the Webster Street Jam Festival.\n(10-401) Presentation by Commission on Disability Issues.\nDisability Commission Chair Leslie Krongold gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson thanked the Commissioners for the great work in the community.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Commission would hold a faire this\nyear.\nMs. Krongold responded in the negative; stated the undertaking was huge; the\nCommission decided to have the accessible exercise program instead; the Commission\nmight hold a faire next year.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the accessible exercise program would be available in\nOctober, inquire whether the program could be continued on a case-by-case basis.\nMs. Krongold responded the ball would start rolling in October; stated conversations are\nbeing initiated with gyms and exercise centers throughout the City; hopefully, gyms and\nexercise centers will modify classes to meet needs and the program will be the\nbeginning of something more.\n(10-402) Presentation by the Alameda Hospital District.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "Jordan Battani, President Hospital Board, gave a brief presentation; and Debra\nStebbins, CEO Alameda Hospital, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda residents can use the primary care clinic.\nMs. Stebbins responded in the affirmative; stated the clinic operates like a private\npractice; physicians are employed by the Hospital; Alameda Hospital is allowed to do\nthis since it is a district hospital; California is one of three states with an exemption for\ncorporate medical practice.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Hospital's website is linked to the City's website.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded that she is 99% sure\nthat it is, but she would check.\nCouncilmember Tam stated recently, the Veteran's Administration (VA) gave a\npresentation to Council on plans to build a $200 million clinic at Alameda Point; inquired\nwhether having a VA clinic at Alameda Hospital instead of Alameda Point would be\nrealistic in light of losing the Kaiser contract.\nMs. Stebbins responded Alameda Hospital continues to enjoy a very good relationship\nwith the VA; stated that she sees the need to expand the VA clinic operation in Oakland;\nexpansion at Alameda Hospital would be difficult; the Hospital has the capacity to\nprovide VA patients with in-patient care, emergency services, and surgery; Alameda\nHospital is working with San Francisco and Palo Alto facilities on how overflow is\nmanaged; Alameda Hospital does not have the room to meet the proposed 90,000\nsquare foot facility at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City's budget is very similar to the Hospital's; inquired\nhow much has been saved with the [Hospital's] 5% reduction in Executive Management\npay.\nMs. Stebbins responded the 5% reduction was for all non-represented staff, including\nmanagement and executive staff; stated savings amounted to approximately $500,000.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there have been discussions regarding potential\npartnerships between the City and Health Care District in terms of ambulance transport;\ninquired what the partnerships would look like.\nMs. Stebbins responded one issue might be the ability to direct more non-critical\ntransports; stated her concern would be taking the City's Fire Department ambulances\nout of service, which would result in the ambulances not being available for critical care\ntransport; an increase in rigs might be needed, which could be counterproductive.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what is the total contract amount for ambulance\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 3, "text": "transports.\nMs. Stebbins responded that she does not know; stated the cost is charged to patients,\nnot the hospital; the amount would be easy to get.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has suggested having a liaison sub-committee\nwith the Hospital Board and City Council, similar to those with the School District and\nAC Transit; some items that could be discussed with the liaison sub-committee would\nbe: 1) off-site expansions, which would be an economic development component; 2) the\nVA and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority relationship; and 3) emergency\nand non-emergency transport services, including the City's franchise rights; the City's\nrelationship with AC Transit and School Board is valuable.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked Ms. Stebbins for the presentation; stated that she is\nconstantly being asked how the Hospital is doing and how its financial picture fits with\nthe need for seismic retrofitting; inquired how capital expenditures would be funded.\nMs. Stebbins responded the Hospital has discussed various financing options with an\nadvisor; stated the Hospital has very little debt; not having a long history of positive\nmargins and reserves complicates the ability to access capital; the Cal Mortgage\nprogram is available for hospital financing; an initial presentation has been made to Cal\nMortgage; a formal application will be submitted in a couple of months; a presentation\nwill be made to the Loan Committee around December or January; Cal Mortgage tends\nto be more lenient in terms of consequences because Alameda Hospital is not the only\nhospital in a financially challenged situation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she hopes Council receives updates as the Hospital\nmoves through the process; the community is interested in the issue.\nMs. Stebbins stated several community meetings would be held; the Hospital enjoys a\nvery good relationship with its neighbors; the entire process will take less than a year;\nthat she would be glad to provide regular updates.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether State funding or grants are available for\nretrofitting.\nMs. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated retrofitting is another unfunded\nmandate; stated that she has had meetings with Congressman Stark regarding tapping\ninto the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, but the money cannot be used for\nretrofitting.\nVice deHaan stated the Hospital losing the Kaiser contract resulted in a 14% cut;\ninquired whether the Hospital settled with the nurses.\nMs. Stebbins responded the Hospital settled a four-year contract with Service\nEmployees International Union (SEIU) before the Kaiser contract terminated in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 4, "text": "November; the California Nurses Association (CAN) Contract was negotiated after the\nHospital received the news about Kaiser; the Hospital has settled three union contracts:\nLocal 6, Local 29, and CAN; all unions agreed to a wage freeze; CAN has a three-year\nwage freeze.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated costs for constructing hospital beds have gone up.\nMs. Stebbins stated construction costs have gone up at an expediential rate; seismic\nretrofitting is costing the hospital industry a lot of money; hospitals that are not in any\nfinancial difficulty are having financial challenges; the whole picture has changed.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Hospital has unfunded pensions.\nMs. Stebbins responded in the negative; stated the Hospital has very complex pension\nfunds; some pensions are managed by the unions and a couple are at the 80% or 90%\n[funded] level; two pension programs have been frozen; one is active and is funded at\nthe required level; northern California and Bay Area hospitals have been very generous\nin other regards, but have not gotten into pension or health care funding for retirees.\nMayor Johnson stated that Ms. Stebbins is welcomed to come back on a regular basis.\n(10-403) Proclamation Declaring September 25 as Coastal Clean Up Day 2010.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.\nThe Public Works Coordinator stated over 2,000 volunteers have picked up 8,500\npounds of debris.\nMayor Johnson stated the spartina eradication program has had an impact on\nreclaiming Bay waters.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated McDonald's is one of the biggest debris generators; a\nprogram should be established to address the problem.\n(10-404) Announcement regarding the Sunshine Task Force Workshop to be held on\nSeptember 11, 2010 at 1:00 p.m., at the Alameda Free Library, Stafford Meeting Room.\nGretchen Lipow, Sunshine Task Force Chair, gave a brief presentation and encouraged\neveryone to attend the Workshop.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember 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.]\n(*10-405) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on July 20, 2010, and the\nSpecial City Council Meeting held on July 27, 2010. Approved.\n(*10-406) Ratified bills in the amount of $27,677,201.59.\n(*10-407) Recommendation to Empower the City Attorney to Employ Special Legal\nCounsel to Defend SCC Alameda Point, LLC, V. City of Alameda et al. Accepted.\n(*10-408) Recommendation to Allocate $1,088,382 in Urban Runoff Funds and Award a\nContract in the Amount of $1,088,382, Including Contingencies, to GSE Construction for\nthe Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station, No. P.W. 02-10-06.\nAccepted.\n(*10-409) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,372,209, Including\nContingencies, to WR Ford for the Cyclic Sewer Replacement Project, Phase 8, No.\nP.W. 01-10-03. Accepted.\n(*10-410) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $88,500, Including\nContingencies, to Clean Lakes, Inc., for Vegetation Management, Debris Management,\nand Water Quality Monitoring for South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 07-10-19. Accepted.\n(*10-411) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $337,472, Including\nContingencies, to Weber Tractor Service for the Repair of Portland Cement Concrete\nSidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and Minor Street Patching, Fiscal Year 2010-2011,\nPhase 11, No. P. W. 06-10-14. Accepted.\n(*10-412) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement within the City of\nAlameda, No. P.W. 07-10-20. Accepted.\n(*10-413) Resolution No. 14484, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to File an\nApplication for $837,000 in Federal Surface Transportation Program and/or Congestion\nMitigation and Air Quality Improvement Funding for the City of Alameda Certain Street\nRehabilitation, No P.W. 08-10-21 (Otis Drive, Westline Drive to Willow Street),\nAppropriate $108,442 in Proposition 42 Funds as the Necessary Local Match, and\nStating the Assurance to Complete the Project.\" Adopted.\n(*10-414) Resolution No. 14485, \"Ratifying the Public Utilities Board's Approval of the\nFirst Amendment to Agreement for Construction, Operation, and Financing of\nCombustion Turbine Project Number One and the Quitclaim Deed Form for the\nRoseville Combustion Turbine Units, and Authorizing the General Manager of Alameda\nMunicipal Power to Execute the First Amendment and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the issue should be researched.\nThe Building Official stated that he would look into the matter; continued the\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson stated getting different information from inspectors increases the need\nfor more inspections.\nThe Building Official continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what a person could get for a $10,000 kitchen\nremodel.\nThe Building Official responded the $10,000 valuation is based upon square footage;\nstated the valuation is not a cost but a record keeping number and does not measure\nout specifically.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the average amount of a kitchen remodel, to which the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 7, "text": "Building Official responded approximately $150 per square foot.\nMayor Johnson inquired how Alameda fees compare to other cities.\nThe Building Official responded other cities do not charge based upon valuation; stated\nremodels have a standard fee; continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether all the types of permits reviewed represent less than\n30% of permits issued, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what type of permits represent the remaining 70%.\nThe Building Official responded improvements, furnace replacements, electrical service\nchanges, termite reports, residing, and windows.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated window replacements, awnings, porches, and decks\nhave outrageous permit fees; that he would like to get more information; when he\nwanted to put a pergola on the back of his house, the permit fee was three times the\ncost of materials.\nVice Mayor deHaan noted the number of termite permits must be high because a permit\nis required whenever a property is transferred.\nThe Building Official stated window permits often require a significant planning fee; staff\nis looking at ways to change design review charges.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a change would prevent bootleggers.\nThe Building Official stated people do not pull permits if fees are too high.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff used to measure responsiveness through the [permit]\nprocess; inquired whether staff currently has a benchmark or measuring device.\nThe Building Official responded over the last six months, he has been conducting an on-\nline survey once a project is complete; stated responses have been overwhelmingly\npositive.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to see the responses.\nThe Building Official stated that he would provide the information; all information is\nsubmitted anonymously.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people are clear about what is required for a simple\npermit; further inquired whether information is available on the website so contractors\nknow what is required for simple projects in order to avoid interpretation problems.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 8, "text": "The Building Official responded a number of handouts are available to address specific\nrequirements; stated staff works very hard to ensure that interpretations are accurate\nand consistent.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether people are assured that comments are anonymous;\nstated in the past, people have been afraid of retaliation; perhaps comments should go\nto a third party; inquired what percentage of people submit comments.\nThe Building Official responded approximately 20%; stated the survey goes through a\nthird party on-line survey company; that he has an open door policy.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether electricity needs to be upgraded to code when a\nkitchen countertop is changed.\nThe Building Official responded three of the six jurisdictions he checked with require an\nelectrical upgrade, and three do not; stated the City requires an electrical upgrade\nbecause new countertops usually trigger the purchase of new appliances, which could\nseverely overload an antiquated electrical system; the issue is a life and fire safety\nmatter; a couple of years ago, a Bay Street house fire was the result of an antiquated\nelectrical system.\nMayor Johnson stated the Bay Street house was a lot older than a number of homes in\nAlameda; that she receives most complaints from Harbor Bay residents; Harbor Bay\nhomes are not old.\nThe Building Official stated an electrical upgrade would not be required if a house is\nless than twenty years old because the Code has not changed; an electrical upgrade\nmakes sense for older homes.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired whether the [electrical upgrade] requirement is an\nElectrical Code or Fire Code interpretation, to which the Building Official responded\nElectrical Code.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a separate standard should be in place if new\nappliances are not be installed; stated the issue is very irritating to people and has been\nquestionable for years; the issue should be reviewed.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he agrees with Mayor Johnson; the envelop is being\npushed farther than necessary; inquired whether permits have increased, to which the\nBuilding Official responded permits have increased approximately 10% from last year.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether more people are being hired to handle the\nincrease.\nThe Interim City Manager responded temporary contract people are being used; stated\nnothing has been added in this year's budget [to hire inspectors].\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff is able to provide next day [inspection]\nservice.\nThe Building Official responded last year, second day inspections were about 95%;\nstated staff has drifted back to approximately 75% same day inspections; more than a\ntwo-day inspection seldom occurs.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the reserve amount.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the estimate for the year end is that the reserve\namount would be approximately $400,000; stated the goal is to get a minimum ninety-\nday working capital.\nMayor Johnson inquired when staff would come back with [planning and building fee]\nchanges.\nThe Interim City Manager responded part two could be brought back in thirty days;\nstated a window, awning, and countertop information could also be brought back.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the next presentation to include\nmaterial in the packet.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the window and interim mutton issue has been\nresolved.\nThe Building Official responded staff is much clearer; staff would come back with\ninformation on what can and cannot be done.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether different windows are allowed for different types of\nbuildings, to which the Building Official responded in the affirmative.\n(10-418) Urban Greening Planning Grant\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 9:08 p.m. and returned at 9:10 p.m.\n*\nMayor Johnson stated moving forward on the matter is great; hopefully, Alameda will\nbecome a model City.\n(10-419) Citywide Records Retention and Destruction Policy\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City would digitalize as much as possible; stated\nthe Museum has some City records; the City should put the records into the City's\ndigitalized records; that she does not mind destroying paper copies once records are\ndigitalized.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the email policy should be reviewed also; that she is not\nsure whether the issue should be reviewed by the Sunshine Task Force or staff;\n[electronic] storage is cheap; there is no good reason not to keep digital records and\nemails.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a records company should be utilized; records\nrequired by statute should be on microfiche because microfiche lasts 100 years;\nsomeone with technical expertise is needed.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is focusing on inventory; right now, the issue is an\norganizational issue.\nMayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Matarrese regarding getting\nexpert help; the Courthouse scans every document filed; most documents are available\nalmost immediately; Alameda is a little behind in its technical capacity; investments\nneed to be made.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the first step is to do something with the phones; the\nmoney saved [from a new telephone system] can be used to reinvest in the computer\nsystem; approximately $100,000 has been put in the budget to upgrade computers; the\nCity's hardware is archaic.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated digital should be at the front end; inquired whether the City\nClerk's office digitalizes documents, to which City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated things that go into the [digital] archives would not go into\nstorage boxes.\nThe City Clerk stated Council has never authorized not keeping paper files; everything\nis stored as paper as well; the City Clerk's office uses microfiche also.\nMayor Johnson stated that her preference would be to digitally preserve records, not\ndestroy records.\nThe Interim City Manager continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she agrees with Mayor Johnson; stated policy should\ndrive technology; the policy should be consistent with the State's email retention policy;\nthat she works extensively with litigation and a record retention policy that pretty much\nrequires that nothing be destroyed; that she would like to see the Sunshine Task Force\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 11, "text": "advise Council on the matter; a thirty-one page proposed ordinance will be presented\nthis Saturday; that she would like to get policy direction from the community as well.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City should get the documents from the Museum.\nSpeaker: Jeff Mitchell, Alameda.\n(10-420) Executive Management Compensation: Form and Process\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether each individual Department Head contract would\ncome to Council.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the form would not be a contract but would be\nmore of a traditional Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); stated contracts are not\nused as much as before.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would be binding\non the City; stated offer letters are not contracts and are not binding on the City; City\nManagers have abused some things in offer letters; contracts need to be approved by\nCouncil; that she is glad that the Interim City Manager is bringing the matter to Council\nbecause the proposed form would prevent abuse by City Managers and circumvention\nof Council authority; inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would be\nbinding on the City.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the [Executive Management] MOU would be just\nlike other bargaining units' MOUs and would be binding; stated the [Executive\nManagement] MOU would be similar to other MOUs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the [Executive Management] MOU would\nbe brought back to Council for approval, to which the Interim City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have other options come back to\nCouncil as an agenda item so that Council would be able to discuss the pros and cons\nof a contract versus an [Executive Management] MOU and provide direction.\nThe Interim City Manager stated three types have been discussed: an offer letter, a\ncontract, or a [Executive Management] MOU.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not like the idea of claiming that an offer letter\ncould be binding on the City.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Interim City Manager and Department Heads would\ncreate a document that would be applicable across the departments; the [Executive\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 12, "text": "Management] MOU could also be called a template; the template would be brought\nback to Council for review; Council would have the option of approving the template or\nusing some other vehicle; assuming that Council would approve the template, the\ntemplate would become the boiler plate for a City Manager to use when hiring a\nDepartment Head; the template would be the same as other bargaining unit MOUs.\nMayor Johnson inquired how a City Manager would get from the template to deals with\na Department Head to make the template binding on the City.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the template would be available to a Department\nHead; stated a transmittal or offer letter might be transmitted to the candidate and the\ntemplate could be attached.\nMayor Johnson stated a previous City Manager gave a Department Head a deal which\nshe does not think Council would have ever approved; someone could call something a\ncontract and binding obligation even when it is not.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the template would be very specific.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council has discussed the issue in the past; Mayor\nJohnson and Councilmember Matarrese have raised the potential of an amendment to\nthe City Charter; one suggested hybrid approach was to use the City of Berkeley model\nwhere the City Manager offers a job to a Department Head, which is tentative and\nsubject to Council approval, and includes all terms of employment so that there is some\nCouncil oversight; said approach is an available option in looking at a Charter\namendment.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think a Charter amendment is required\nbecause Council has to approve a contract; a contract is a binding obligation that the\ncitizens of Alameda have to fulfill.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she thinks in terms of a contract having a start and\nend date; an offer letter, which is the least specific, offers the most customization and\nopportunity for individual arrangements and negotiations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the matter placed on\nan\nagenda, have the Interim City Manager provide a written analysis of what is being\nproposed, and have the City Attorney's office analyze what a contract would be for an\nindividual who would become a Department Head, what the City would be obligated to\ngive the individual, and what would obligate the City.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council is going the right way; elements need to be\nstandardized; Council needs to have an opportunity to review various options.\nMayor Johnson stated a City Manager's verbal offers are an abuse that needs to be\nprevented; having an [Executive Management] MOU may not prevent the abuse from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 13, "text": "occurring.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a person is really hired if Council does not\nappropriate the money.\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated the Charter only gives Council, not\na City Manager, the authority to set compensation and pension benefits for any\nemployee; Council approves a salary range and specific benefits that can be offered to\nrepresented employees through an MOU; Council needs, at bare minimum, to have a\nstandardized document approving a salary range and benefit package for Department\nHeads; the standardized document would allow a City Manager to hire only within the\nparameters of a compensation plan and benefit package; any past offer letters that have\nnot been ratified by Council are not binding on the City; that she agrees with Mayor\nJohnson on said matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated ratifications have been part of the budget process and have\nnot been very specific when it comes to Department Heads; that she would like the staff\nanalysis to include some discussion regarding uniformity and retroactivity; Department\nHeads have different needs; work hours are different; inquired whether a car allowance\ncould be taken away uniformly for all Department Heads or whether the issue could be\nadjusted within the template, a quasi MOU, or specified to different classifications.\nThe Interim City Manager responded models are available for all three concepts; the\ngoal is to make the template specific and less ambiguous.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-421) Resolution No. 14488, \"Appointing Madeline Deaton as a Member of the\nPublic Utilities Board.\"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-422) Recommendation to Pursue Activation of the City of Alameda's Participation in\nthe City of Oakland's Foreign Trade Zone (FTZ) #56 in Response to Appropriate\nBusiness Opportunities.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda is not a port or a destination center for distribution\nof goods; inquired how Alameda's participation would work.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded Alameda is considered\nto be part of the larger port of entry and is part of FTZ #56.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Johnson requested an explanation on taxes.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated a business would repackage\nor assemble goods at a location in Alameda and export goods through the port or\nOakland airport; expensive excise taxes would be avoided because goods would not be\nimported to the United States.\nMayor Johnson stated some tariffs have gone up to 600% which makes it more\neconomically feasible to assemble and manufacture items within the United States.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how successful Oakland has been; further inquired\nwhether Alameda would be in competition with Oakland; stated corridors are a concern.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded Alameda has already\nreceived some preliminary interest; stated Alameda has land in close proximity to a port\nand international airport; the activation would be another tool in the economic\ndevelopment tool kit; participation could be used on an opportunistic basis.\nMayor Johnson stated participation would not just be repackaging but would be job\ncreation in the United States.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated Oakland wants to support\nAlameda's participation because business would be brought to the port and airport.\nMayor Johnson stated Council should not assume that Alameda would be dealing with\ncontainers going back and forth through the tube as in the past.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated the City would only\nparticipate in the right opportunities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the issue should be explored; private investment\nopportunities would be available for buildings that need help; the investment would spur\njobs.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would like to review how the operation would work;\nquestioned why Oakland is not using its FTZ to the maximum; stated using interim\nreuse may work extremely well; the vision would not be to warehouse at the port.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated impact assessments are\nvery difficult without site-specific opportunities; staff would come back to Council with\nopportunities that make sense and are consistent with goals.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a fee is associated with activating\nparticipation.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the negative; stated\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 15, "text": "staff and minimal consultant time would be needed to ensure that things are done right;\nthe application process is straight forward because Oakland has already gone through\nthe more extensive process.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated activation seems reasonable; staff would bring back\nsite-specific opportunities to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated that she agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; activation does\nnot mean that the floodgates need to open.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated community input would be needed also.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City of Oakland is in favor of Alameda's\npotential activation.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the City of Oakland has\nbeen very helpful in initial conversations; stated staff did not want to go too far out\nwithout getting Council direction.\nMayor Johnson stated activation would present regional opportunities through jobs and\neconomic development.\nSpeakers: Former Councilmember Tony Daysog, Alameda; and Alex Chen, Alameda.\nFollowing Former Councilmember Daysog's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired\nwhether the City of Oakland would be in control, if activation would occur.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded the City's activation\nwould be part of Oakland's FTZ; stated Matson Global Distribution Services operates\nthe general-purpose FTZ.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda would have control over what goes in\nAlameda.\nThe Interim City Manager responded uses would belong to Alameda; stated Matson\nGlobal Distribution Services would administer the FTZ in compliance with federal law.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Economic Development stated participation would be on a\nsite-specific basis.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested verification that whatever goes into the Alameda\nsection of the FTZ would be controlled exclusively by Alameda within constraints of\nfederal law, to which the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether participation would not be activated until a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 16, "text": "promising opportunity would be brought to Council, to which the Deputy City Manager -\nEconomic Development responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Council could reject a promising opportunity, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Economic Development responded in the affirmative.\nFollowing Mr. Chen's comments, Mayor Johnson requested an explanation of tariff\nissues that have prompted interest in FTZs.\nMr. Chen stated duty on laptop parts is 20%; duty on an assembled laptop is 255%.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether union jobs would be generated, to which Mr. Chen\nresponded that he does not know.\nMayor Johnson stated that she had not heard of any exemptions from [using] unions.\nThe Interim City Manager stated some cities have elected to establish policies in terms\nof working with anyone interested in the FTZs.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with\nconsideration of the type of jobs that would be created to match existing City policy.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the motion is to pursue the activation, to which\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council would have the opportunity to review opportunities\non a case-by-case basis.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(10-423) Jon Spangler, Alameda, discussed board and commission vacancies.\n(10-424) Peter Clark, Community Response Foundation, discussed the America's Cup.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that staff is working on the American's Cup process.\nVice Mayor deHaan requested an update.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the American Cup Association is in the process of\nfinalizing an agreement with San Francisco; an update would be provided to Council;\nSan Francisco has made a commitment to work with Alameda.\n(10-425) Jean Sweeney, Alameda, thanked the Interim City Manager for obtaining the\nUrban Greening Planning Grant; thanked the Commission on Disability Issues for the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 17, "text": "College of Alameda intersection improvement; discussed the archive documents on her\nwebsite.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to have archived documents.\n(10-426) The following speakers discussed the District Attorney's letter with the decision\nthat there was insufficient evidence against Councilmember Tam: Jeff Mitchell,\nAlameda; John Knox White, Alameda; Barbara Kahn, Alameda; and Bill Smith,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated acknowledging and respecting the District Attorney's\ndecision and legal process is important; the City's role has been to present the results of\nits investigation and have the District Attorney make a determination, which has been\ndone; that she would vigorously oppose spending any more tax dollars on such a\nfrivolous matter; everyone should settle down, take a deep breath, and reject the urge to\nescalate the matter; now is not the time for further litigation or acrimony; going after\nCouncilmember Tam civilly appears at a minimum to be a complete waste of tax dollars\nand the Court's time; learn from what has occurred and get back to doing the business\nthat the people of the City elected Council to do; to that end, it is really important that\ncitizen's know that Council's judgments will be made with their best interest at heart;\nbefore considering any new actions on anything further relating to the matter, she will\nask, echoing some of the comments made tonight, that the City Auditor audit the books\nand records relating to the matter so that the public has a clear understanding of the\namount of money expended on the matter; right now, Council does not know how much\nmoney has been spent; secondly, she requests that outside counsel, not the firm\ninvolved in the matter, conduct a workshop on the Brown Act for Council, staff, Boards,\nCommissions, and any interested members of the public; finally, she requests the\nCouncil to agree that the appropriate venue for dealing with the Interim City Manager\nand City Attorney actions are within the context of performance reviews which have\nbeen previously scheduled and are coming up shortly; hopefully everything can be put\nbehind once performance reviews are done and the Councilmembers can get back to\nthe work the citizens of Alameda elected them to do; in the interest of taking a deep\nbreath and pausing, her question to her colleagues is that she does not understand why\nthere is a Council meeting on Thursday to determine whether or not to file litigation; that\nshe does not know why there is a rush; if the meeting occurs at all, given the events and\ncircumstances of the case, she suggests having the meeting in open session; the public\ndeserves to know why and how tax dollars are being spent; individuals and attorneys\nwho want to push forward with the case should present the rationale for doing so in the\nface of the fact that the District Attorney rendered an opinion that there is no evidence to\npursue the matter.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 18, "text": "(10-427) Councilmember Tam stated for weeks Mayor Johnson, the Interim City\nManager, and the City Attorney have been asking the District Attorney through outside\ncounsel, Michael Colantuono, to expedite the investigation so that the City can get on\nwith its business; for the record, based on the letter that the District Attorney has sent\nand the Island blog has published on its website, she learned that the City's special\ncounsel sent five letters of which she has only seen three along with her attorney; her\nattorney has sent two; the City Attorney's office, through Mr. Colantuono, submitted a\nletter practically every other week documenting issues and concerns they have with her\nemail and her communications; 285 pages; the District Attorney waited and reviewed\nevery single one in a very exhaustive way; they have come to the determination that\nthere is no legal or factual basis to support the allegations that the Brown Act has been\nviolated or that she has mishandled confidential information; asking the Council to\ndiscuss issues of concern to the public, whether the public raises it, whether a City\nbusiness partner raises it, or whether an employee group raises it, is wholly appropriate\nand is part of her responsibility as a City Councilmember; it is unfortunate that the City\nissued a press release that does not seem to respect the exhaustive review and the\nanalysis of the District Attorney that has lasted over two months; it is also unfortunate\nthat they have produced a press release that distorts the District Attorney's findings that\nthe matter is closed.\n(10-428) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she understands that the County is at a\nvery preliminary stage in discussing the potentially moving forward with Countywide\nproject labor agreements that would affect all cities; it might behoove the City to take a\nlook at the issue; that she will bring back a Council Referral for discussion.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:38 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\n18\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY -SEPTEMBER 7, 2010- -7:02 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 10:40 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 10:40 p.m. and returned at 10:42\np.m.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCMENTS\n(10-65 CIC) Presentation on Fa\u00e7ade Assistance Program for fiscal year 2009-2010.\nThe Development Coordinator gave a Power Point presentation.\nChair Johnson stated the fa\u00e7ade grants make a big difference within the community; the\nbefore and after pictures are unbelievable; that she wishes more money could be found\nfor the Program.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated a lot of work has been done on Park Street and Webster\nStreet; a critical mass has now been reached and the faces of the streets are changing.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association.\nCommissioner deHaan stated the Fa\u00e7ade Assistance Program has been extremely\nsuccessful; involving new proprietors in the beginning is very important.\nMINUTES\n(10-429 CC/10-66 CIC) Minutes of the Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission Meetings held on\nJuly 20, 2010, and July 27, 2010. Approved.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan moved approval of the minutes.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n1\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 20, "text": "(10-430 CC) Recommendation to Authorize the Community Improvement Commission\nof the City of Alameda to Enter into an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with\nWarmington Residential for Redevelopment of the City's Corporation Yard Located at\n1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter Located at 1590 Fortmann Way; and\n(10-67 CIC) Recommendation to Approve an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement by and between\nthe Community Improvement Commission and Warmington Residential for Redevelopment of\nthe City's Corporation Yard Located at 1616 Fortmann Way and the City's Animal Shelter\nLocated at 1590 Fortmann Way.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the project is small; inquired why the initial term of the ENA\nwould be eighteen months.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the timeframe is more of\nan issue with the City developing a relocation study and is more for the City's benefit.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired what has been learned from the SunCal ENA.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the City has standard\nand good faith provisions and termination dates in all ENAs; stated the project is for two\nacres and up to twenty-seven units; the ENA is simple and straightforward.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated no developer is perfect, but no developer is like SunCal;\nthe City's relationship with SunCal totally broke down; inquired whether assurances are\nin place to avoid a similar breakdown with Warmington Residential.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded Warmington Residential\nhas a proven track record in the City and is moving forward in very difficult economic\ntimes; stated staff feels comfortable with Warmington Residential.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated staff needs to assess whether moving the two\nfacilities [Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter] is feasible for the City; the ENA is not as\ncomplex as the SunCal ENA.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether the CIC budget includes $100,000 that would\nbe needed to reimburse Warmington Residential for geotechnical and environmental\ntesting if the project does not go through.\nThe Interim Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated every year, a small\namount is budgeted for studies.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether the project would be subject to affordable\nhousing requirements, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services\nresponded in the affirmative.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n2\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 21, "text": "Commissioner deHaan stated his concern is the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter\nrelocation; the Animal Shelter relocation would cost between $1.2 million and $3 million;\nthe Corporation Yard relocation would be approximately $2 million; inquired where\nfunding would come from.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded $376,000 is budgeted for\na relocation study; stated a process would be needed to outline how the City would\nsuccessfully relocate and construct the facilities.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated costs would not be known until studies are\ncompleted; the City has real estate assets that are not used to the highest, best use;\nconversations need to address the fact that the Animal Shelter needs to move and the\nCorporate Yard location is not logical; that she has some financing ideas.\nChair Johnson stated the entire northern waterfront is blighted; public waterway access\nhas been very limited.\nSpeaker: Andy McKinley, Grand Marina and Alameda resident.\nChair Johnson inquired whether Mr. McKinley is using other property to satisfy parking\nrequirements for his property.\nMr. McKinley responded right now, the parking problem has no solution; stated that he\nis proposing everything west of the northern extension of Paru Street be excluded.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter need to be\nrelocated; the area is complex; that he is not sure the ENA is the solution; that he sees\na couple of incompatibilities: the area has a full service marina and shops in the Alaska\nPackers Building, which needs repair and investment; parking needed to maintain the\nshops is being eaten up by development; the Boat Yard generates noise; having houses\nnext to a boat yard would result in a collision; mixed use sounds great in an urban\nplanning textbook, but somebody is going to lose at some point; the ENA could be a tool\nto see what is feasible and practical; his yardstick would measure whether a true mixed\nuse development would work.\nThe Interim Executive Director inquired whether the waterfront plan states mixed use.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded mixed use is noted in the\nGeneral Plan; stated the property is zoned residential.\nChair Johnson stated staff ought to take another look at the zoning; the issue is similar\nto the Catellus project.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he agrees; perhaps some retail would be needed\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n3\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 22, "text": "instead of ship operations; that he would like to look at the matter and flush out the\n$376,000 relocation study.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the proposed use could be\ncompatible with residential.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what options have been reviewed for the Alaska\nPackers Building.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the Tidelands Trust limits\nuses to maritime, visitor, retail, and restaurants.\nChair Johnson stated the Alaska Packers Building should be considered in the plans for\nthe site.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated a parallel track could be initiated with the ENA;\nstaff could come back with two proposals.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the relocation study should\nbe done at the same time also.\nMr. McKinley stated Warmington Residential gave the City $100,000 to build a new\nfacility when property was swapped.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated that she is intrigued with the proposal, which should be\nreviewed; she would be more comfortable seeing more information on the Alaska\nPackers Building before acting on an ENA; she would hate to get into a situation where\none problem is solved by moving the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter and\nrevitalizing the property only to cause difficulty for the Alaska Packers Building, which is\na City asset with restricted uses because of the Tidelands Trust; the upkeep [Alaska\nPackers Building] would fall on the City by not allowing a developer to develop the\nproject in a financially feasible manner.\nCommissioner deHaan stated looking at the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter\nconstruction costs is important; funding streams need to be known; the worst thing\nwould be to get half way through the process and not have funding; that he would like to\nhave the matter flushed out.\nChair Johnson stated that she agrees with Commissioner deHaan; the purpose of\nbringing the matter before the Commission tonight is to start looking at the issues.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated that he has no problem with starting the ENA with\nWarmington Residential; an ENA would not allow negotiations with anyone else on the\nresidential portion of the project; that he does not want to go eighteen months and then\nhave the administrative ability to go three more months; things need to be brought back\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n4\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 23, "text": "regarding the Alaska Packers Building; a guide of the ENA should be to protect the\nAlaska Packers Building as a City asset to ensure that there would not be future\nincompatibilities with a working boat yard and adjacent residences; a project labor\nagreement would be needed; zoning should be reviewed to ensure compatibility; said\nissues should be spelled out as ENA conditions.\nCommissioner Tam stated tonight, she is not ready to craft a motion to enter into an\nENA; that she is does not have the same level of comfort as her colleagues without a\ncomprehensive review of relocation plans and financing; the Animal Shelter is a very\nsensitive, emotional issue in the community; public comment is needed before she is\ncomfortable with moving forward.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired what would be the timeframe for bringing the matter\nback; further inquired whether relocation sites and costs could not be started.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the contract to do so\n[relocation study] is separate.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated she would like to move forward with looking at relocation\nsites and costs.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the review would take eight\nmonths to a year.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated coming back with an [revised] ENA would not take eight\nmonths to a year.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether Council would like\nstaff to come back [with the ENA] in twelve months.\nChair Johnson stated staff should get started on the relocation part.\nCommissioner Tam stated certain things need to be nailed down; that she does not\nknow how long it would take to nail things down; the public process needs to be\ntransparent.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services inquired whether the Commission\nwants the relocation study started or completed [before entering into the ENA].\nThe Interim Executive Director stated that she recommends a parallel track; a complete\nrelocation analysis and study with a consultant would take several months.\nChair Johnson stated that she likes an almost parallel track, suggested getting started\non the relocation part.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n5\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 24, "text": "The Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated some Commissioners want to\nknow the financial aspects, which would be pretty far along in the study.\nCommissioner Tam inquired whether knowing how much the land would sell for would\nbe important.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded what the land is worth\nversus relocation costs are two separate issues.\n***\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam left the dais at 11:47 p.m. and returned at 11:50\np.m.\nCommissioner deHaan stated a lot of loose ends exist; that he does not think the\nCommission is ready to go forward; costs could be calculated on the back of a napkin;\nthe ENA does not have to be done immediately.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated concrete answers would not\nbe known until the relocation study is done.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired what would be the square footage of the Animal\nShelter, to which the Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded staff\nwould hire someone to answer said question.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the idea of the ENA would be to sit down with\nWarmington Residential to see their valuations and what they can do to build houses in\nthe area; the output would be a Development Agreement (DA); the DA would need to be\ncompatible with uses, including the Packers Building, and would have to account for\nrelocating two City operations; moved approval of directing the Interim Executive\nDirector to come back with an updated ENA for the Commission to discuss, to define a\ntimeframe in the ENA for the CIC and Warmington Residential that would point to the\nparallel work that has to be done exclusively, including existing operations around the\nAlaska Packers Building, and to look at other rules and benefits for the City, including a\nlabor agreement, appropriate zoning, and all public hearings necessary to ensure that\nthe public knows the intent and milestones in between.\n*\n(10-431 CC/10-68 CIC) Councilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of\ncontinuing past 12:00 midnight.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n***\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n6\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 25, "text": "Commissioner deHaan stated the Commission is not asking for a lot of detail; other\nelements need to be considered in order to be successful.\nChair Johnson stated the Animal Shelter would be better off in another location.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated that she has recommendations on where the\nCorporation Yard and Animal Shelter could go; this year's budget has funds for a very\nextensive feasibility analysis for rebuilding, constructing, and relocating the Corporation\nYard and Animal Shelter; the process should not be started until the CIC knows what\nthe property can be sold for in order to put more cash into the deal; the Commission's\ncomments and Commissioner Matarrese's amendments to the ENA have seven\ndifferent components which would be put into the ENA; staff would come back regarding\ngetting consultants on board to start the feasibility analysis; the CIC does not have the\ncash or funds to buy property and build something; the cost estimate would be based on\nthe type of building and landscape, as well as the physical relocation cost; staff has\nother recommendations for the Commission in terms of what could happen with\nAlameda Municipal Power; through an asset management strategy, the CIC could have\nmore than enough to pay for the Animal Shelter and approximately 50% to pay for the\nCorporation Yard; a deal might be able to be struck in a DA to offset costs; the situation\nis sequential.\nChair Johnson stated ensuring a benefit to the City is important in terms of the economy\nof scale.\nCommissioner Gilmore inquired whether a bunch of dominos need to fall in order to\nfinance the Corporation Yard and Animal Shelter relocation; stated the Commission has\na sense of unease because the Interim Executive Director has a clear idea of where to\nmove the Corporation Yard and costs; that she is not privy to the information.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated that she needs to have some discussion\nregarding selling the property in order to validate numbers and theories; the cart is\nbefore the horse.\nCommissioner Gilmore stated Commissioner deHaan is asking for ballpark figures.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how much two acres is worth to Warmington\nResidential.\nMichael McClellan, Warmington Residential, responded that he does not know until\npreliminary testing is done.\nCommissioner deHaan inquired how much two clean acres would be worth.\nMr. McClellan responded approximately 20% of land value; stated the issue is that the\nproperty is small, irregular, and under bay mud; that he spoke to Pennzoil about the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Community\n7\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-07", "page": 26, "text": "Shelter is not optimal for the animals; she wants a better facility.\nCommissioner Tam stated Mount Trashmore is not the right place.\nCommissioner deHaan stated past discussions have included taking in other districts to\nmake the Animal Shelter profitable.\nThe Interim Executive Director stated staff has looked at other options, including doing\nwhat Berkeley has done.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:03\na.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 and Community\n8\nImprovement Commission\nSeptember 7, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-07.pdf"}