{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--SEPTEMBER - - 21, 2010- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:15 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(10-433) Mayor Johnson announced that the Public Hearing to Consider Resolution\nCertifying the Final Environmental Impact Report [paragraph no. 10-450] and Public\nHearing to Consider Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel Map [paragraph no. 10-453\nwould be continued to October 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese announced that Considering Taking Action Regarding\nCalming Traffic [paragraph no. 10-456 was to be placed on the October 5 agenda;\nrequested that the Request for Settlement [paragraph no. 10-441 be addressed\nin\nClosed Session.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether having a Closed Session on the item would be\npossible.\nThe Risk Manager responded generally, settlements need to be done within two to four\nweeks; stated if not, the issue would go to trail, which would put the City in a bad\neconomic situation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether waivers would be needed to discuss the issue in\npublic.\nThe Risk Manager responded that he cannot go into detail because of confidentiality.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot make an informed decision or ask\nquestions without the benefit of discussion.\nThe City Attorney stated the name of the employee and nature of the injury cannot be\ndiscussed [in open session]; however, information provided in the staff report can be\ndiscussed.\nThe Risk Manager stated the employee could be identified if he explains what\nhappened.\nMayor Johnson stated Council would not be doing due diligence by making a decision\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 2, "text": "based on a general statement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of scheduling the Request for Settlement\nAuthority [paragraph no. 10-441 in Closed Session as soon as possible.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-434) Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2010 as Alameda's Walk and Roll to\nSchool Day.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Audrey Lord-Hausman.\nMs. Lord-Hausman thanked everyone who makes the event happen; stated that she\nlooks forward to seeing everyone on October 6th\n(10-435) Presentation of Certificate of Appreciation from the U.S. Census Bureau.\nThe City Clerk presented the certificate on behalf of the U.S. Census Bureau.\n(10-436) Cynthia Wasko announced that Alameda has been named one of the Nation's\n100 Best Communities for Young People; provided a press release.\nMayor Johnson thanked everyone for all the hard work in contributing to make Alameda\na better place for youth; stated the recognition is great.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City\nManager to Negotiate [paragraph no. 10-443] and Resolution Approving a Project\nOperating Agreement [paragraph no. 10-445] were removed from the Consent Calendar\nfor discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder 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.]\n(*10-437) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of September 7, 2010.\nApproved.\n(*10-438) Ratified bills in the amount of $ 1,815,376.97.\n(*10-439) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 3, "text": "(*10-440) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report. Accepted.\n(10- -441) Request for Settlement Authority of Workers' Compensation Claim #ALAO-\n004385. Not heard.\n(*10-442) Recommendation to Award a First Amendment in the Amount of $53,385 to\nSuarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell\nAvenue Intersection Project - Landscape and Irrigation Improvements, No. P.W. 06-09-\n18. Accepted.\n(10-443) Recommendation to Authorize the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute the Fifth Amended Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement between the City of\nAlameda and East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD). Accepted.\nCouncilmember Tam noted that she would recuse herself and left the dais because she\nis employed by EBMUD.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much the EBMUD is paid for system\nmaintenance.\nThe Public Works Director responded EBMUD is paid over $750,000 per year for water\nconsumption.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether some of the $750,000 is offloaded to tenants.\nThe Public Works Director responded tenants pay towards water consumption, which is\noutlined in leases; stated the $750,000 is what the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAgency (ARRA) pays for water used at Alameda Point; each tenant has a rate that is\ncharged to lease revenue.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Alameda Point meters are separate.\nThe Public Works Director responded not all meters are separate; stated EBMUD does\nnot read individual meters, only the master meter; EBMUD wants to know when larger\ntenants would be individually metered.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether water leaks are charged to the master meter.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated recently, the wharf had\nleaks; EBMUD's policy states a bill will be reduced by half if a water leak is\ndocumented; the other [EBMUD] payment is for ongoing water facility repair and\nmaintenance; the Public Works Department does not have the expertise to maintain and\nrepair water lines; EBMUD is paid anywhere between $100,000 to $300,000 per year\nfor repairs; water main breaks have lessened over the years.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated EBMUD fixes water main breaks on the main island;\ninquired whether the service is built into rates.\nThe Public Works Director responded a full, ongoing water system maintenance rate\npays for Alameda Point water main breaks; stated EBMUD is charging twice because\nthe water system is not up to standards; that he does not feel the full consumption rate\nshould be paid because some percentage should take care of ongoing water main\nrepairs; that he will be discussing the matter with EBMUD.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what upgrading Alameda Point would entail.\nThe Public Works Director responded EBMUD would like to work with the City on\nupdating an Alameda Point facilities study done by the Navy fourteen years; the study\nidentified projects, including water tank removal that was part of the fire suppression\nsystem; cross contamination is a concern; a water main extension on Fox Avenue has\nbeen completed; EBMUD typically adds fast flow preventers to prohibit contamination.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired who would pay for things that need to be done.\nThe Public Works Director responded ARRA; stated the question for EBMUD is what\nneeds to be done now in light of future Alameda Point redevelopment; putting in\nimprovements that would not be used later would not make sense.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.\n(*10-444) Resolution No. 14489, \"Authorizing the Interim City Manager to Submit an\nApplication to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's Fiscal Year 2010-2011\nTransportation Fund for Clean Air Regional Fund for $430,000, Provide $43,000 in\nSpecial Transportation Projects and Programs Funds for the Local Match, and Execute\nall Necessary Documents for an Estuary Crossing Bicycle/College Shuttle.\" Adopted.\n(10-445) Resolution No. 14490, \"Approving a Project Operating Agreement with the\nEast Bay Regional Communications System Authority.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how much would be left in the fund [City's Equipment\nReplacement Internal Service Fund] after paying for the system and whether the City's\ncomputer upgrades would be affected.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the negative; stated $3.1 is projected for the\nfund this year; staff will determine department charge back costs for the next three to\nfive years once budget forecasts are reviewed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved adoption of the resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-446) Police Department Explorer Program\nThe Acting Police Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated having Explorers check out uniforms may be better [than\nallowing uniforms to be taken home]; inquired what staff would look for in a background\ncheck; stated that she does not want people to think that a perfect record is necessary\nfor participation; the proposed program could turn a youth around.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded a person cannot have criminal convictions; stated\nthe background check would involve talking to family, neighbors, and teachers to ensure\nthat the participant is responsible.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the process sounds more like a reference check\nrather than a background check, to which the Acting Police Chief concurred.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether less people are going into the police academy.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded in the negative; stated there is a growing need for\npolice academies.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how many explorers would be in the Explorer Post.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded the Post would have no limit; stated participation\nwould be encouraged; staff would need to ensure that the number of participants is\nmanageable.\nMayor Johnson thanked the Police Department for taking the initiative; stated the\nprogram will be good for the youth.\n(10-447) Communication on Alameda Branch of the Amateur Radio Emergency Service\nand Fire Department\nThe Deputy Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that ham operators are very enthusiastic to participate.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief stated the Citizens' Emergency Response Team (CERT) and\nham operators have a close connection; ham operators are very mobile.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired what is the timeframe for getting the Memorandum\nof Understanding (MOU) signed and testing the network.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded the MOU should be signed within two weeks; stated\ncapabilities will be tested in the upcoming November [Disaster Preparedness] exercise.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the network would be capable of overlapping with\nother cities.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated worldwide capabilities enable\nreaching out much farther than the normal radius.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is glad to see the network happening; local\nradio operators perform their own drills and have been pushing for a closer relationship\nwith the City; having a volunteer citizens group take on the issue would be very\nimpressive; the City would have a great opportunity to take advantage of home-grown\ntalent.\n(10-448) September 3 Correspondence from Alameda County Health Care Service\nAgency Regarding Emergency Medical Services [EMS] Contract\nSpeakers: Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Alex Briscoe, Director of\nAlameda County Health Care Services Agency (submitted letter); Domenick Weaver,\nIAFF.\nFollowing Mr. Briscoe's comments, the Interim City Manager stated that she received an\nemail from Dale Fanning, Acting Assistant EMS Director, advising that the $840,000\nannual payment to the County as noted in the staff report has gone up to approximately\n$857,000.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the County would not be obligated to provide\nAdvanced Life Support (ALS), but the City would still be able to provide Basic Life\nSupport (BLS) if the County revokes the City's EMS license, to which Mr. Briscoe\nresponded said statement is generally correct.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether County counsel contends that voter approval\nwould not be needed if the City annexed into the system; stated the staff report implies\nthat voter approval would be needed.\nMr. Briscoe responded that his understanding is that voter approval would not be\nneeded.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda residents would pay a fee and not have to\nvote on the matter if the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) expanded, to which Mr. Briscoe\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she and Supervisor Lai-Bitker sit on the JPA for lead\nabatement; she recalls that voters would need to vote to start charging a fee when new\ncities join the JPA.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the two issues need to be differentiated; one would be\na vote to annex into the EMA District and the other would be to assess property owners.\nMayor Johnson stated that is what she is saying; residents could not be assessed a fee\nwithout voter approval.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she differentiates the JPA from special assessment\ndistricts; inquired whether Alameda is the only City out of the fourteen Alameda County\ncities not in the EMS District, to which Mr. Briscoe responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what are the Proposition 218 assessment restrictions;\nstated that she assumes residents would pay some parcel assessment if the City were\nannexed; inquired whether the assessment would require a vote of the electorate based\nupon County legal counsel.\nMr. Briscoe responded Council could take action to annex the City into the EMS District\nwithout voter approval.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council is not disagreeing with the annex issue, but\nquestions the assessment issue.\nMr. Briscoe stated that commenting on the assessment issue is not within his scope.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the initial Contract stated the City would pay the County\n$630,000 annually; the amount has escalated to $840,000.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the amount has increased to approximately $857,000\nbased on the Consumer Price Index (CPI).\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the basis for the increase.\nMr. Briscoe responded the increase is in context of health care costs rising five times\nthe amount of wages.\nCouncilmember Tam stated page 20 of 30 of the proposed Contract states: \"This\namount will be paid annually, in quarterly installments to the County to compensate the\nCounty for services it provides to Contractor. The amount is $857,830.98 annually.\nCounty may increase this amount subject to any Cost of Living Adjustment imposed by\nthe Alameda County Board of Supervisors on the annual assessment paid by property\nowners with the Alameda County Emergency Medical Services District. The amount\nmay also be adjusted based on a change in the number of benefit units within the\nExclusive Operating Area (EOA)\"; the letter [from Alameda County Health Care\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 8, "text": "Services] states that the City has failed to provide 911 response time information;\nrequested an explanation of protocol for submitting information; stated the City provided\ninformation up to a certain point and then stopped.\nMr. Briscoe responded Monday's meeting would be a better time to go into detail of\nwhat is required; stated currently, the only outstanding data is the second quarter\nresponse times, which was due August 1st; enforcement action is difficult without a\nContract.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City would be fined $50.00 per day for every\nmissed deadline if there were a Contract.\nMr. Briscoe responded that he believes so; stated the City enjoys one of the fastest\nresponse times in the County; the City's Fire Department has the potential to be one of\nthe best EMS service providers in the County; the County does not have access to\nenforcement, oversight, or management measurement mechanisms.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated having the City be the best EMS service provider in\nthe County is not a potential, but a reality.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the [Alameda County Health Care Services] letter notes\nthat the Fire Department would be required to share an appropriate number of\nambulance calls with other ambulance companies that wish to provide services in\nAlameda if the County removes Alameda's EOA destination; recently, the County\ncontracted with Paramedics Plus for Countywide responses; inquired whether \"other\nambulance companies\" would mean other ambulances that service the area.\nMr. Briscoe responded the Interim City Manager is in receipt of communication from\nParamedics Plus and American Medical Response; stated both ambulance companies\nhave stated that cheaper and better service cannot be provided [in comparison to the\nCity's Fire Department].\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated requiring the Fire Department to share an appropriate\nnumber of ambulance calls seems counter productive if the Fire Department can\nprovide better and cheaper service than a private contractor; direction should be given\nto preserve the service level.\nFollowing Mr. Weaver's comments, Councilmember Gilmore directed that the item come\nback as an action item at the first Council meeting in October so Council can make a\ndecision; stated that her preference is to preserve service; she would like to know how\nthe $6.6 million [annual cost for providing the ALS program] is calculated; that she\nrecalls the cost being $4.2 million in past discussions; inquired where the extra $2.4\nmillion comes from; stated collection rates were discussed approximately one year ago;\ninquired what are the ambulance service collection rates; Council has not been satisfied\nwith collections rates and has directed staff to find another collection entity to get a\nhigher [collection] percentage; that she recalls the collection rate was under 50%; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 9, "text": "1980 staff report assumed a 75% collection rate; that she does not think the [current]\ncollection rate is at 75%; residents use County services; the City should find a way to\npay for the services; that she is bothered by the three options because the options are\npresented as financial calculations; information is not provided regarding impacts;\ninquired what would happen to response times if the County provided ALS services;\nstated the issue is not just dollars and cents; two-thirds of the City's calls for service are\nmedical; inquired how many calls utilize ALS versus BLS services; stated that she\ncannot see going to a lesser service if ALS service is utilized; inquired whether more\novertime would be needed; inquired what was the glitch in not reporting on the last 911\nresponse calls.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the $6.6 million [annual cost in providing\nthe ALS program] is the result of $2.3 million in recovered revenues for ambulance\ntransport services and $4.3 being contributed from the General Fund, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City would lose $2.3 million in revenue\nif the City's ambulance service ceases.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the City would lose $2.3 million in revenue;\nhowever, fire-staffing demands would be less; $6.6 million is the total cost for the\nservices.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he agrees with Councilmember Gilmore; the item\nneeds to be brought back with accounting data in order to make a decision.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the 1983 memo [from the Assistant City Manager] is very\nhelpful; the community cannot afford to have the Contract in a log jammed position for\nsomething as important as ambulance service; in 1982, voters voted 80% to establish a\nparamedic service and bring critical life saving medical treatments to the City; the vital\nservice is worth the added cost, especially since Alameda has the highest percentage of\npeople over 65 years old; BLS is not sufficient; the Fire Department can provide a\nservice level that surpasses the County's response times; the County is offering a\nsolution through annexation; Alameda is the last City holding out on being part of the\nEMS District; Measure P funds should be used to help pay for the difference between\nservice costs and insurance reimbursements; ALS service is the highest priority for\ncommunity public health and safety and is a must have; stated that she would like to\ndirect the City to enter into negotiating a contract.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Council has had prior Closed Session discussions on\nlegalities of the matter, which have not been flushed out; elements need to be\nunderstood before moving forward; Alameda's service level is superior; the County\nbelieves that the City has fallen into a $6.6 million hole; legal and financial information is\nneeded; that he is not sure whether said information can be discussed in open session.\nThe City Attorney stated that she has not seen the County counsel opinion regarding\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 10, "text": "the County's obligation under State law to provide ambulance services, which\nspecifically includes ALS and BLS services; she is not clear whether County counsel\nhas seen her attorney-client privileged opinion provided to Council; the County is\nobligated under State law to provide ALS service one way or another; the breakdown\nhas been in negotiating a reasonable cost; the breakdown has extended for five years;\ngranting counties sole authority to set parameters and standards as well as provide\nEMS services, specifically ALS service, would be anomalous under State law; nothing in\nState law allows a county to collect service fees from a city.\nMayor Johnson requested that Mr. Briscoe obtain an opinion on the issue from County\ncounsel.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to meet with County staff,\nthe Mayor, and County Supervisor to flesh out legal opinions on both sides, provide cost\nand service level breakdowns, report back to Council in Closed Session regarding legal\nopinions before the next Council meeting, and discuss the issue in open session to\nprovide direction on options with additional points of added clarity regarding finances\nand detailed service levels.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council sees the issue as a very high priority; that she\nunderstands the matter is a legal issue, but Council needs to get past the matter; health,\nlife, and safety are at stake; the community needs to have the comfort that someone will\nbe there when a 911 call is placed; a Contract needs to be executed.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese's motion is one of\nprocess to get more information, negotiate, and come back to Council.\nThe City Attorney responded no action could be taken on the item.\nCouncilmember Matarrese restated that his motion is to give direction to have the\nCounty Supervisor, Mayor, and staff flush out financial and legal obligations, bring the\nmatter back to Council in Closed Session to discuss legal obligations and strategies,\nand come back to discuss and take action on the matter in open session at the next\nCouncil meeting.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she wants the matter to come back sooner rather\nthan later; various funding mechanisms would need to be determined if the Contract\ngoes forward.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether direction is clear, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the $857,000 cannot be taken lightly.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the $857,000 is not the only issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 11, "text": "(10-449) Harbor Bay Parkway Bay Friendly Landscape Median Project\nApril Philips, April Philips Design Works, gave a Power Point presentation.\n***\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:51 p.m., Vice Mayor deHaan left the dais at 8:52\np.m., and both returned at 8:53 p.m.\n***\nMayor Johnson inquired whether plants would be planted through cardboard.\nMs. Philips responded small plants would be planted above the cardboard; stated larger\nplants would be planted through the cardboard.\nMayor Johnson stated landscaping should be changed in other areas also.\nMs. Philips stated Harbor Bay Parkway is committed to having future green and\nLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified projects.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether plants would have the same beneficial value [as\ngrass] in absorbing carbon.\nMs. Philips responded more carbon would be absorbed because grass would not be\nripped up; stated a carbon sink would be created by having grass decompose into the\nsoil; carbon is released when soil is disturbed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated lawns photosynthesizes carbon dioxide to oxygen;\nplants would be just as green; inquired whether any gravel or chips would be used,\nwhich would take away the photosynthesis, to which Ms. Philips responded the area\nwould have more bio mass and absorb more carbon.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the area has a huge ground squirrel problem; inquired\nwhether cardboard would alleviate the problem.\nMs. Philips responded the cardboard should not make the problem worse; stated a few\nlavender plants were lost when Peet's Coffee was landscaped.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-450) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Certifying the Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report; Adopting Findings and a Statement of Overriding\nConsiderations, and Adopting Mitigation Monitoring Program; Adoption of Resolution\nAmending the General Plan; Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning\nOrdinance; Adoption of Resolution Upholding the Planning Board Resolution to Deny\nPLN 08-0160, and Approval of a Settlement Agreement Pertaining to the\nRedevelopment of Property Located at 2229 Clement Avenue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 12, "text": "Continued to October 5, 2010.\n(10-451) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending Municipal\nCode Sections 30-17.9 (Requests for Incentives or Concessions for Sites with a\nCommercial or Mixed Use Zoning Designation) and 30-17.10 (Incentives or\nConcessions Defined) of Section 30-17 (Density Bonus Ordinance) of Chapter XXX\n(Development Regulations Article 1 Zoning Districts and Regulations) that Allows Caps\nor Limits on Concessions and Incentives for Density Bonus Projects on Sites with a\nResidential General Plan or Zoning Designation. Introduced.\nThe Planning Service Manager gave a brief presentation and outlined acceptable\nchanges proposed by the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS).\nMayor Johnson stated ensuring that the lot size reduction is as clear as possible would\nbe good.\nSpeaker: Christopher Buckley, AAPS.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether lot coverage would be left at 40%, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether setbacks would be left at 40% also, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated three feet is not that much and should be the minimum.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated a developer would not be prevented from\nrequesting a waiver; the idea is to direct developers towards waivers that staff would\nconsider favorably.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated having two adjacent, nonconforming properties could\nend up with a foot and a half setback; an absolute number is needed.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated a five-foot minimum is already in the Code; the\nZoning Code establishes the minimum standard; waivers of any standard can be\nrequested under State law; State law gives very little leeway to say no; the concession\nand incentive list is steered towards waivers or standards that staff would be most\ncomfortable with; heights are not on the list because staff does not want to encourage\ntall buildings.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated older neighborhoods have all wood houses close\ntogether; averaging side yards with an empty lot in between would end up with close\nhouses, which would become a health and safety issue; identifying a five-foot minimum\nwould show that the City is not interested in averaging out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 13, "text": "The Planning Services Manager stated the second reading [of the ordinance] could\nclarify that reducing the minimum side yard setback beyond the existing standard is not\nsomething the City is interested in doing at all.\nThe City Attorney stated Density Bonus Law allows a developer to get a certain number\nof incentives or concessions; the number of incentives and concessions is limited;\nsaying no to incentive or concession requests is difficult; the proposed ordinance\nprovides some guidance; waivers are different.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the proposed ordinance should guide away from\nhaving houses a foot apart.\nThe City Attorney stated the provision could be struck entirely.\nMayor Johnson concurred that the provision be struck.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the Ordinance as corrected.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(10-452) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14491, \"Adopting General Plan\nAmendment (PLN10-0041) to Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to Change\nthe Designation for One .085 Acre Parcel Located at 709 Lincoln Avenue (APN 073\n041801400) from Community Commercial to Medium Density Residential.\" Adopted;\nand Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone\nApproximately .085 Acres Located at 709 Lincoln Avenue APN 073 041801400 from\nCC-Community Commercial Zoning District, to R-5, General Residential Zoning\nDesignation. Introduced.\nThe Planner I gave a brief presentation.\nSpeaker: Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business Association.\nMayor Johnson stated that she completely understands Ms. Moehring's comments\nregarding the issue of mixed-use neighborhoods.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have a problem with the staff\nrecommendation; however, General Plan Policy 2.4.b needs to be reviewed; having a\ntraditional residential next to industrial use area that pays good taxes is a huge conflict;\nAlameda has had the benefit of businesses moving to the City from Emeryville because\nof said problem; General Plan Policy 2.4.b is heading the City in the wrong direction.\nMayor Johnson stated the project involves a house that has been at the location since\n1910.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution and introduction of the\nordinance.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-453) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Tentative Parcel\nMap No. 9876 Planning Application No. PLN09-0185 - a Parcel Map for the Proposed\nSubdivision of the Site at 2318 Pacific Avenue into Two Parcels.\nContinued to October 5, 2010.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-454) Consider Establishing a Citywide Project Labor Agreement (PLA).\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a Citywide PLA would be for projects that receive a\ntaxpayer subsidy in the form of money or public land; the former Naval Base has\na\nhomeless collaborative and veterans' service which should be considered as the first\nsource in formulating a PLA.\nCouncilmember Gilmore suggested checking with the County to benefit from research\nalready done.\nSpeaker: Andreas Cluver, Alameda County Building Trades Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of reviewing templates, looking at model\ncompatibilities or leading with the County, and having a report come back to Council\nwithin sixty days to advise how long the matter would take.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated having a PLA would not make a good deal for the City.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam inquired whether direction is to have the Interim\nCity Manager or staff comes back to Council in sixty days after meeting with labor\norganization representatives and obtaining the County template.\nCouncilmember Matarrese clarified that the motion is to look at the County template and\nother templates and come back to Council with an update within sixty days.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the clarified motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 15, "text": "(10-455) Direct Staff to Hold a Workshop on the Brown Act; Request that the City\nAuditor Perform an Audit of the Books and Records, Including, But Not Limited to, Legal\nBills, Costs, Technology (Hardware and Software) and Employee Time Expended in the\nInvestigation of Councilmember Tam; and Terminate the Legal Contract for the Matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated most Councilmembers understand the Brown Act extremely\nwell; that he is confident in his understanding the Brown Act; State mandates require\nCouncil and Boards and Commissions to take a refresher course every two years; that\nhe does not feel the need for additional training unless interpretation problems exist.\nThe City Attorney stated the City Attorney's office offers Brown Act training to all Boards\nand Commissions; concurred with Councilmember Gilmore regarding the League of\nCalifornia Cities' ability to provide a low-cost presentation; however, a presentation by\nthe City Attorney's office would be at no cost.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Boards and Commissions take refresher courses\nevery two years, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the Brown Act safeguards the public; that he takes exception\nif someone thinks that he does not understand the Brown Act.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated she is not bringing the matter to Council as a personal\nattack on what Council knows or does not know; lately, the Brown Act has been the\nsubject of much discussion; the workshop would not only be useful to Council, Boards\nand Commissions, and staff, but the public also; training provided by the City Attorney's\noffice is not available to the public; the workshop could take care of the entire\npopulation.\nMayor Johnson suggested that the City Attorney come back to Council with an idea;\nstated the public may be curious; inquired whether Councilmember Gilmore is\nrequesting a workshop for City officials and the public.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded that she is requesting a public session; members of\nthe public would prefer not to have the City Attorney's office perform the training, which\nis why she is requesting that Terry Francke or the League of California Cities provide a\nworkshop.\nVice Mayor deHaan concurred with Councilmember Gilmore regarding the public's\nconcern with the Brown Act; stated a public briefing would be worthwhile in order to\nunderstand constraints; perhaps a half hour presentation at a Council meeting would be\ngood.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not have any problem with a workshop,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 16, "text": "particularly for the public; he feels that he has been trained on the Brown Act; that he\nhas been provided with materials from noted State experts; having materials available\nfor the public, rather than having a road training, would be valuable; that he would like to\nhave the City Attorney come back with a public educational workshop plan, sighting\nreference materials, in addition to reviewing case law; having the City Auditor check the\nbills is perfectly appropriate; Mr. Colantuono said that he has not seen a letter [from\nCouncilmember Tam's attorney]; the matter will come back to Council after the letter is\nreviewed which would be the end of the matter since Council will not be pursuing civil\nlitigation; at that point he does not have any problem with the Contract ending.\nThe City Attorney stated terminating Mr. Colantuono's Contract with the City would be in\nviolation of the City Charter; the Charter gives the City Manager the authority and power\nto investigate any City official; Section 7-3 states that Council cannot interfere with a\nCity Manager's duties or obligations; the matter was discussed at the September 9th\nSpecial City Council meeting; Mr. Colantuono's Contract is one contract; the\ninvestigation of Councilmember Tam is not a separate contract; that she would not\nrecommend terminating Mr. Colantuono's services; Council should refrain from doing\nsuch a thing.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Colantuono has a general contract and\ndoes not provide specific service descriptions and costs each time.\nThe City Attorney responded Mr. Colantuono always provides specific service\ndescriptions and costs; stated the City Auditor does not need to be engaged; an audit\nwould not show how much has been spent on internal staff time; that she can advise\nCouncil and the community how much has been spent over the last six months.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City has remedied the problem noted by Mr. Spangler\n[Police Department's failure to provide information]; the public's curiosity has been\nheightened; having the public understand Brown Act requirements is important; inquired\nwhether anyone has asked the City Attorney how much money has been spent [on\ninvestigation of Councilmember Tam].\nThe City Attorney responded in the negative; stated that she will personally provide the\ninformation to Council.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a Public Records Act request shows that Mr. Colantuono's\ninvoices from March through August totaled $77,000; inquired whether said amount is\naccurate.\nThe City Attorney responded the amount may or may not be accurate; stated the\nresponse to the referenced Public Records Act request provided the monthly\nsummaries of the total amount of services; Mr. Colantuono's services to the City are in\nother areas, which has been the case for over a decade.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 17, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated a reporter posed a question to the City Attorney regarding\nhow much has been spent on the investigation; the article quoted the City Attorney as\nsaying \"that is privileged information and not available to the public.'\nThe City Attorney stated that she has never had a conversation with anyone in the\npress regarding the matter; she has not read the referenced article but would be very\ninterested in reading it; no one in the community has asked her how much has been\nspent [on the investigation] and she cannot imagine being quoted when she has never\nhad such a conversation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City Attorney had a conversation with Ms.\nEllson, to which the City Attorney responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated having a Brown Act educational workshop would be a\ngood idea; an accounting of money spent on the investigation should be requested;\nmoved approval of directing the City Attorney to 1) come back with an educational\nworkshop proposal for the public, interested Councilmembers, Boards and\nCommissions; 2) provide an accounting of the legal, hardware, and software costs\nexpended on the investigation of Councilmember Tam.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested that the motion include accounting of staff time.\nMayor Johnson suggested that the motion include accounting to the extent possible.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated some people have the understanding that Council has\ncontrol over the issue [of terminating contracts]; inquired whether the City Attorney has\nsought other interpretations and is comfortable that the Charter's intent is not to give\nCouncil the authority or power to terminate contracts.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated giving the City Manager power,\nauthority, and duty to investigate a Councilmember wrong doing while allowing Council\nor an individual Councilmember to withdraw funding and resources would be\nanomalous; the situation is akin to the Watergate investigation and firing of Archibald\nCox.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the issue is one of checks and balances.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated his motion purposefully leaves that off [contract\ntermination]; this is a request for information.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City Attorney has made it clear that Council cannot\nterminate the Contract; requested an accounting [of Mr. Colantuono's services] and\nfollow up accounting until the matter is concluded.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nSeptember 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-09-21", "page": 18, "text": "(10-456) Consider Taking Action Regarding Calming Traffic on Residential Streets that\nHave Become Overburdened, Used as \"Cut-Throughs\" or Experience Other Traffic\nProblems.\nReferral was to be placed on October 5, 2010 agenda.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-457) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing\nCommission, Library Board, and Planning Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Fayleen Allen or appointment to the Housing Commission\nand Nancy Lewis for appointment to the Library Board; continued the Planning Board\nnomination.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\n(10-458) Councilmember Gilmore stated that she attended the School District's\nworkshop regarding the parcel tax; encouraged the public to become engaged and\nattend the workshops; stated the School District's funding crises is not just a school\nissue, but a community issue; the community needs to come together to solve or aid the\nfunding crises; that she will do everything that she can; schools are a vital part of the\nCity's infrastructure; the community will not function well without supporting the schools.\n(10-459) Councilmember Gilmore stated Council has asked for performance plans from\nCouncil's direct reports [Interim City Manager, City Attorney, and City Clerk]; one was\ndue by tonight's meeting; that she has not received the performance plan; Council\ncannot schedule performance reviews of Council's direct reports; that she wants to\nknow what is the hold up.\n(10-460) Vice Mayor deHaan stated a lot of [election] surveys are being done;\nrequested that the City Clerk provide information on the source of the surveys.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:05 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 21, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-09-21.pdf"}