{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER - 5, 2010- -7:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(10-466) Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolutions of Appointment [paragraph\nno. 10-467], the joint meeting reports on the status of America's Cup [paragraph no.\n10-488 CC/ARRA/10-69 CIC] and the report on the meeting with Supervisor Lai-Bitker\n[paragraph no. 10-468 would be addressed first.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(10-467) Resolution No. 14492, \"Appointing Fayleen Allen as a Member of the Housing\nCommission (Tenant Seat).\" Adopted; and\n(10-467A) Resolution No. 14493, \"Appointing Nancy Lewis as a Member of the Library\nBoard.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to Ms. Lewis.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:13 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:24 p.m.\n*\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-468) Mayor's Report on Meeting with Supervisor Lai-Bitker Regarding County EMS\nContract.\nMayor Johnson stated the meeting was very positive; the process has two tracks: one is\nthe Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) process and the other is the City's\nindependent process; the LAFCO process would involve Alameda joining the EMS\nDistrict; staff has indicated a separate contract issue is very close to being completed;\nover the years, the City and County have had discussions regarding payments due; the\nCounty has made a very reasonable proposal that would not involve transfer of City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "money to the County; direction needs to be given to proceed with finalizing the contract\nand going through the LAFCO process for joining the EMS District; Alameda is the only\nCity within the County, including unincorporated areas, that is not part of the EMS\nDistrict; the County is responsible for providing trauma care.\nSupervisor Lai-Bitker thanked the Mayor and Interim City Manager for spending time to\ndiscuss the matter; stated the meeting was very productive and positive; that she hopes\nthe timeframe will be met; she took the liberty to contact LAFCO; there is not enough\ntime for the matter to come before [LAFCO] at the November meeting because an\napplication takes sixty days to file; the next [LAFCO] meeting is January 13, 2011.\nMayor Johnson stated precise details were not discussed; staff can bring the matter\nback for a public hearing if Council is comfortable with giving direction to move forward\nwith the parallel process.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked everyone for getting together on the very important\nissue; moved approval of directing staff to move forward with working on the contract\nand LAFCO process and come back to Council with an outline of the process, including\na timeline of the two tracks.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam inquired whether Council would be directing\nstaff to go forward with the annexation and go through the LAFCO process to become\npart of the EMS District, finalize the contract, and come back with a timeline at the next\nCouncil meeting.\nCouncilmember Gilmore clarified that the motion is to direct staff to provide a process\noutline that includes a timeline; stated that she does not know the steps.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether requesting an outline and timeline would assume\nthat the City would be going through the process.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded that Council would be providing staff direction to go\ndown a path to finalize the contract with the County, provide an outline of the two\nprocesses that would need to be completed, and bring the matter back to Council so\nthat Council can see opportunities for public comment and ensure that the City will meet\ntimelines.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether meeting the timeline before January 2011 would\nbe likelihood.\nMayor Johnson responded the City cannot get on the LAFCO agenda until January;\nstated the County's deadline for the City can be met.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated direction is to negotiate a contract; public hearings\nwould then occur; the contract could be altered.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the contract has basically been finished; some\ntweaking might need to be done; appropriation would require Council action; that she\ncould come back with a critical path.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether or not the contract would be brought back at\nthe next meeting.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the contract would not come back at the next\nmeeting; stated that she is not sure of the critical path for annexation; information is\nmissing.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the LAFCO processes would inform future\nfinancial encumbrances of the contract.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that she assumes Council wants to move forward\n[with the contract] based on expectation that the City would annex into the EMS District,\nbarring any Proposition 218 glitches and that the contract costs would go on the\nproperty tax roles; stated the assessment for a single family residential property would\nbe $26.43 per year; a two to five unit residential assessment would be $63.92 per year;\na supermarket or restaurant assessment would be $105 per year; a larger shopping\ncenter assessment would be $184; the highest assessment would be $392 per year for\nmore than five units; the average assessment would be $42 per year.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated staff would come back with an outline of how the process\nwould work; more background is needed regarding how the fee would be established.\nThe Interim City Manager stated an Attorney General opinion noted that a vote would\nnot be needed; the issue needs to be researched.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Hospital Board went through the LAFCO process to\nform the Alameda Health Care District; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft can help provide\ninformation on boundaries.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public needs to know how a tax can be assessed\nwithout a vote; the issue needs to be tested against the Proposition 218 measuring\nstick.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the issue is very important because the City would be\nassessing and putting on a parcel tax.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated escalation would be part of the equation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 4, "text": "The Interim City Manager stated escalation would be based on a land use category; the\nCity would pay more as it grows; the individual benefit unit is established every year.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(10-469) Proclamation Declaring October as Disability Awareness Month.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Commission on Disability\nIssues Commissioner Nielsen Tam.\nMr. Tam thanked Council for the proclamation; thanked staff for supporting the\nCommission on Disability Issues; stated a tree planting ceremony will take place on\nOctober 16th at Lincoln Park.\n(10-470) Proclamation Declaring October 6, 2010, as Housing Authority Appreciation\nDay for Seventy Years of Service to Lower Income Alameda Residents.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Housing Authority\nExecutive Director; Housing Authority Board Commissioner Torrey and Housing\nCommissioner Arthur Kurrasch.\n(10-471) Proclamation Recognizing October 3 through October 9, 2010 as Public Power\nWeek: Alameda Municipal Power Helps our Community in Powerful Ways.\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Public Utilities Board Member\nPeter Holmes.\n(10-472) Presentation by East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) on Crown Beach\nSand Replacement.\nDoug Siden President of the EBRPD Board and Diane Althoff, EBRPD, gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan 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(*10-473) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting Held on September 9, 2010 and\nthe Regular City Council Meeting Held on September 21, 2010. Approved.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 5, "text": "(*10-474) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,963,240.25.\n(*10-475) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the Annual Fuel Delivery, No. P.W. 09-10-22, and Amend the Contract in the\nAmount of $200,000, Including Contingencies, with Valley Oil Company for the Annual\nFuel Delivery Through December 31, 2010. Accepted.\n(*10-476) Recommendation to Authorize Administrative Approval of Down Payment\nAssistance Loans of up to $80,000. Accepted.\n(*10-477) Ordinance No. 3021, \"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.' Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-478) Presentation on Public Power Week and Energy Awareness Month Activities\nfor October.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources gave a Power\nPoint presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated compact fluorescent bulbs cannot go into the trash;\ninquired whether staff is working on the matter.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources responded a\nflyer informs customers how to property dispose compact fluorescent bulbs; stated\npeople can take the bulbs to Encinal Hardware and Pagano's Hardware for disposal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the issue needs to be amped up; hazardous bulbs\nend up in landfill.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources stated more\ncustomer outreach could be done.\nMayor Johnson stated the City should have more drop off locations.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether drop offs could be done at City Hall.\nMayor Johnson responded batteries could be dropped off at City Hall.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources stated the\npractice is to drop hazardous bulbs at Encinal Hardware and Pagano's Hardware.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether public outreach could be done in classrooms or\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 6, "text": "have students could produce videos.\nThe Alameda Municipal Power General Manager - Customer Resources responded\nsaid ideas are planned for the Green Awards campaign.\n(10-479) Presentation on the City's Affordable Housing Development Pipeline.\nThe Interim City Manager and Housing Department Executive Director gave a brief\npresentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the timeframe for the Fleet Industrial Supply Center\n[FISC] site, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded June, 2012.\nMayor Johnson stated the problem is that the units are deteriorating.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated digging has been done at the site [1435 Webster\nStreet]; inquired whether tanks have been taken out.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated some\nareas are still contaminated because areas were not accessible; areas need to be re-\ndug and the soil has to be remediated; continued the presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how many units are at the Coast Guard housing, to which\nthe Housing Department Executive Director responded approximately 250 units.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether moving the Alameda Collaborative to the area\nwould be possible.\nThe Development Services Division Manager responded the 2009 Community Reuse\nPlan amendment allows for 435 residential units to be developed at north housing;\nstated 90 homeless units would be a subset of the 435 units.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what is the progress on obtaining insurance in case\ncontamination is found.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded the proposal submitted to the\nNavy in 2007 includes insurance; stated progress has not been made because the City\nhas not heard back from the Navy.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired where the City is in terms of meeting allocation goals.\nThe Housing Department Executive Director responded that he would get back to\nCouncil on the matter; stated the City is lacking between 50% to 80% for medium\nincome.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 7, "text": "(10-480) The City Attorney gave a brief presentation on the workers compensation\ncase, which was settled.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated normally, workers compensation issues happen in\nClosed Session; usually, an agreement is made by the policy board; proposed\nagreements are brought to Council for a vote; inquired how the case in question is\ndifferent.\nThe City Attorney responded the case is very unusual; stated the injured employee filed\na claim; both sides agreed upon a medical examiner; the medical examiner submitted a\ndisability rating; the employee did not ask for anything else; the disability rating was not\ndisputed; Council has no discretion to refuse to grant the statutory compensation based\nupon the agreed upon medical examiner's decision; the outcome would not have been\nany different if the matter did not come to Council.\nMayor Johnson stated the 31% [disability rating] is a discretionary number that either\nside could dispute.\nThe City Attorney stated that she discussed the matter with Outside Counsel, Keith\nEpstein; Mr. Epstein has been the City's workers compensation attorney for almost\ntwenty years; there is case law that if parties use an agreed upon medical examiner,\nthen parties have agreed to accept whatever the agreed upon medical examiner's\nrating; it is not Mr. Epstein's practice to check the disability rating of the agreed upon\nmedical examiner with Council; that she would discuss changing the process if Council\nwishes.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is sensitive to the statement that there is no\ndiscretionary act.\nThe City Attorney stated dulling medical opinions might occur if both sides have their\nown qualified medical examiner; discussions might take place regarding settlement and\nan appropriate disability rating.\nMayor Johnson stated each side could put in a provision not to agree to accept the\nrecommended disability rating.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council should have a say if financial discretion is\nbeing turned over to an agreed upon medical examiner; Council should have agreed to\nthe process of accepting whatever the outcome would be before marching down said\nroad.\nThe City Attorney stated that she understands the confusion; suggested Mr. Epstein be\nbrought to the next Council meeting, or as soon as is practicable, if Council wants to\nconsider changing the process; Mr. Epstein could outline how the statutory workers\ncompensation system works.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired when was the agreed medical examiner agreed upon,\nto which the City Attorney responded probably within a month of filing the claim.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the agreed upon medical examiner was agreed upon\nbefore the case came to Council on September 21st Consent Calendar, to which the\nCity Attorney concurred.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why the matter was scheduled for Council to\ndetermine settlement authority if Council had no discretion.\nThe City Attorney responded that neither she nor the Risk Manager had been properly\nadvised by the City's third party administrator that the injured worker had an attorney\nand that the matter had been scheduled for the judge's order on September 29th; the\nmatter was placed before Council because of the third party administrator's\nrecommendation to get Council's settlement authority; the matter is not before Council\ntonight because the matter has already been dispositively ordered by the workers\ncompensation appeal judge; that she can provide Council and the community with an\nOff Agenda report explaining how the workers compensation process works and/or can\nrequest Mr. Epstein to make a presentation to Council, including what the process has\nbeen for at least twenty years.\nCouncilmember Gilmore state mandatory settlement conferences are set weeks or\nmonths in advance in most trial situations; inquired whether the same is true for workers\ncompensation.\nThe City Attorney responded that she cannot advise when settlement occurred; stated\ninformation provided by the third party administrator was wrong; no one had the proper\ninformation and she did not discover that the matter was scheduled for the workers\ncompensation appeals judge until last week.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired why Outside Counsel informed the judge that he had\nno settlement authority if there was no discretion.\nThe City Attorney responded the proceeding before the Workers Compensation Appeal\nBoard is not like a civil trial in Superior Court; stated once parties have reached a\ndisability rating either through an agreed upon medical examiner or dulling medical\nexaminers, the case goes to the workers compensation appeals judge; at the\nmandatory settlement conference, the judge typically asks if there is any settlement\nauthority; Mr. Epstein properly stated that he had no settlement authority; Mr. Epstein\ncould have requested that the matter go to trial, in which case the judge would have set\nthe trial, which is a one-day hearing before the same judge; the judge would have\nclosed discovery at the mandatory settlement conference, which means that no new\ninformation could come in; the parties would be stuck with the agreed medical exam\nconclusion; the judge would simply reiterate his order because there is no defense; the\ninjured employee would need to wait an extra ninety days to receive the statutory\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 9, "text": "required compensation for the injury.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is not concerned about the outcome; she is\nglad that the employee has been taken care of; she is more concerned about the\nprocess, Council discretion, and the appearance of having staff take discretion away\nfrom Council; inquired whether there was a conversation between the City Attorney,\nRisk Manager or any other staff regarding the determination as to whether or not to\nbring the matter to Council in open or closed session.\nThe City Attorney responded there was discussion on the matter based upon the third\nparty administrator.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether there was discussion as to whether or not to\nbring the matter in closed session; stated most workers compensation issues are\nbrought to Council in closed session and Council likes to ask questions; by putting the\nmatter on the Consent Calendar, she assumes the City Attorney felt that Council would\nnot have any questions.\nThe City Attorney stated all needed information was in the staff report.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated obviously not because two Councilmembers raised\nquestions regarding the issue; maybe the process broke down at the very beginning\nwhen the decision was made not to bring the matter to Council in closed session.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City Attorney was not aware that a hearing\nwas already scheduled to occur after September 21st.\nThe City Attorney responded that she was not aware that the matter had already gone\nto litigation and that a mandatory settlement conference through the Workers\nCompensation Appeals Board was scheduled for September 29th.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated that she and the\nRisk Manager thought that no attorney was involved and did not know that the matter\nwas scheduled to go before the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, which means;\nthere would be no choice but for Council to approve the compensation payment set by\nstatute; if she knew that the matter was going before the Workers Compensation\nAppeals Board judge on September 29th, she would not have bothered to bring the\nmatter to Council in open or closed session because is no discretion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the matter should be reagendized.\nThe City Attorney stated that she could have Mr. Epstein go over the issue in detail, if\nCouncil wants the matter reagendized.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to have the matter resolved tonight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated the sequence of events would not change; Council would\nlike to understand the process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a medical examiner was agreed upon; that he would\nlike to have Council receive briefings on matters when a recommendation is made by\nthe City's experts so that Council understands that it will be giving up its ability to\ncontest the matter and the matter is being kicked to the statutory side; he would like the\nprocess to change if Council has not been given a heads up for the last twenty years;\nthe third party administrator made a mistake; some time in the future, he would like to\nhear what corrective action has been taken.\nThe City Attorney stated corrective action is being taken; that she would follow up with\nCouncil regarding the matter later; she is offering to prepare an Off Agenda report to\nexplain how the workers compensation system works, including how and when an\nagreed upon medical examiner might be chosen; Council can advise staff if the process\nshould be changed; she recommends bringing the City's workers compensation\nattorney to Council.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Off Agenda report should include what corrective\naction is being taken vis-\u00e0-vis the third party so that the mistake does not happen again.\nThe City Attorney stated the corrective action would be provided to Council; the Off\nAgenda would be separate.\nMayor Johnson stated that an Off Agenda report should be provided in addition to a\npresentation on the process.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(10-481) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14494, \"Certifying the Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report for the Boatworks Residential Project, Adopting Findings\nand a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Boatworks Residential Project\nReduced Density Alternative.\" Adopted;\n(10-481A) Resolution No. 14495, \"Adopting General Plan Amendments Related to\nOpen Space and Residential Development on the Northern Waterfront.\" Adopted;\n(10-481B) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., to Rezone\nParcels Located at 2229 Through 2235 Clement Avenue, APNS 071-0289-05 and 071-\n0290-01 from M-2 General Industrial (Manufacturing) District and R-2/PD (Two Family\nResidence Planned Development District) to Open Space (O) and R-2/PD (Two Family\nResidence Planned Development District). Introduced;\n(10-481C) Resolution No. 14496, \"Upholding the Planning Board's Decision to Deny the\nBoatworks Residential Project Planned Development and Design Review (PLN08-\n0160).\" Adopted; and\n(10-481D) Recommendation to Approve a Settlement Agreement Pertaining to the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the project has gone to BCDC, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether BCDC has indicated that approval would be given.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded BCDC does not take any action until\nCouncil takes action; stated BCDC is pleased with the amount of open space.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Oak Street would be a two-way street, to which the\nDeputy City Manager - Development Services responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether car traffic would be permitted on Blanding Avenue\n[extension].\nThe Planning Services Manager responded Blanding Avenue and Elm Street would be\nautomobile extensions; stated there would be two travel lanes and parking on one side.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated each\nresidence would have its own parking; parking would be provided for the park in\naddition to guest parking for residents.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether guest parking includes parking for people using the\npark, to, which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired how parking would be designated, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded details would be addressed in the tentative map.\nMayor Johnson stated enough parking needs to be provided to make the park\naccessible to the public not living in the immediate area.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the parking on the northeast corner adjacent to\nthe shopping center is the [project's] property.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the parking is on the property; stated cross\neasements would be needed between the two properties.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Dutra property would have the same\nphilosophy of open space, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the property owner would be responsible\nfor contamination cleanup and construction and repairs needed to keep the shoreline\nfrom sliding into the water.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the property owner and future developer\nwould be fully responsible for all cleanup; stated the area would be cleaned to\nresidential standards; the property owner and future developer would be responsible for\nstructural stability of the waterfront park; a strip of land on the northern edge is owned\nby the Army Corp of Engineers; the intent is add the land to the park.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a couple of sunken boats and other things are sliding\ninto the water and need to be removed; storage spaces have contamination coming up\nthrough cracks in the concrete.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the Department of Toxic Substance Control\n(DTSC) has a very expensive cleanup plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether it has been made clear that the City would\nnot be liable down the road if things appear.\nThe City Attorney responded the City does not own the property so there is no liability\nfor environmental problems.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated from a policy standpoint, provisions need to be\nincluded to protect future homeowners.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Settlement Agreement\nhas a provision regarding DTSC signing-off before a final map is approved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated assurances need to be made to protect the City.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the City has a unique opportunity to ensure that\nadequate bike lanes are provided in addition to waterfront public access.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff has been working with the Public Works\nDepartment to design streets for all modes.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated paseos have been designed\nto create linkages.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Oak Street would continue down to the\nwaterfront.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 13, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded staff is trying to create a better connection\nfor pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars; stated a new, full-scaled road would not be created\nbecause there is no room.\nCouncilmember Tam stated when the City was working with Alameda Point Community\nPartners (APCP), the environmental insurance was cost prohibitive and made the\nproject financially infeasible; inquired at what stage would environmental liability\ninsurance be required; stated that she could not find said requirement in the Settlement\nAgreement; inquired how assurances would be provided.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded initially, assurances would come from\nDTSC; stated assurances would be required before housing units are built; the City\nwould not be entering into the chain of title.\nCouncilmember Tam stated significant public contributions would exist even though the\nCity would not be in the chain of title.\nThe City Attorney stated the trigger is property ownership; the City would not need to\nprovide environmental liability insurance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City would not be required because the burden of\nliability would be with the property owner; inquired which street requires a General Plan\nAmendment for a right-hand turn lane, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded the Clement Avenue and Oak Street intersection.\nMayor Johnson stated ensuring that the waterfront park area is accessible to the public\nis important.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:06 p.m. and returned at 9:08 p.m.\nProponents (In favor of staff recommendation): Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board;\nJon Spangler, Alameda; Richard Hausman, Alameda; and Robb Ratto, Park Street\nBusiness Association.\nOpponents (Not in favor of staff recommendation): Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park\nAction Committee (EPAC); Joseph Woodard, EPAC; and Rebecca Redfield, EPAC.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why efforts to obtain Proposition 84 funds were not\nsuccessful.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Trust for Public Land evaluates the\nprobability of success; stated the maximum amount the City could ask for was $5\nmillion; funds would need to be used to purchase the land and build and finish the park;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 14, "text": "the Trust for Public Land did not believe applying for funds would be worthwhile.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City would be getting two acres [for a park]; the\nproject would allow for land cleanup and waterfront stabilization; the solution is good;\ncoming to a compromise has taken nineteen years; the City needs to move forward.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with the\nprovision that the City be very clear in holding standards very high to ensure that future\nresidents would not be impacted by whatever the predecessor activity was on the land;\nstated the matter should be part of the entitlement process.\nMayor Johnson stated having labels on the diagrams would have been helpful; inquired\nwhat is the indentation along the landside of the waterfront, to which the Planning\nServices Manager responded a concept for a set of stairs, which would be subject to\nDesign Review.\nMayor Johnson reiterated that the public area needs to be accessible to everyone.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the final map would come back to the Planning\nBoard and ultimately Council for final approval.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the houses on the northern lots are bigger, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff has had discussions regarding smaller houses in\norder to have a bigger park area, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like to make the green area as big as possible.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Marina Village has a green area; the only activity is people\nwalking the trail.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the lack of activity is because of the small hills.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the build out schedule, to which the Deputy\nCity Manager - Development Services responded forty-eight months.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether funding would ever become available, to which\nthe Planning Services Manager responded the City has tried to buy the land for twenty\nyears.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Thompson Field is catty corner from the project; the\nSchool District and City are working on a joint use agreement for football fields; making\nthe area residential makes sense; maximizing Thompson Field and McKinley Park\nwould cover the \"active park\" portion; the Dutra property remains open for the future.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 15, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired what would be the phasing plan for park construction, to which\nthe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the park would need to be\ncompleted by the 1019 st [house].\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the compromise is good; added a caveat\nto the motion to maximize a good, safe, public access.\nOn the all for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(10-481) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14497, \"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.\" Adopted.\nThe Planner I gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the City would not end up with a mega, monster house similar to\nthe house on Briggs Avenue.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the item was continued from the previous Council\nmeeting because of the fear of splitting residential lots; the neighborhood is mixed use;\nthe Planning Services Manager has come up with some good ideas for ordinance\nchanges precluding residential lot splits.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the north Park Street area zoning code would be\nchanged; the City has had a series of proposals for splitting off the back sections\nof\nproperties; staff wants to bring the issue to the Planning Board and Council, to\ndetermine whether the splits should be allowed in the future.\nMayor Johnson stated the Briggs Avenue house affects surrounding backyards; that\nshe has not heard back on whether the house meets height requirements.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated scales would be addressed.\nMayor Johnson stated the Briggs Avenue neighborhood size and scale standards were\ndisregarded.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is thinking about creating certain criteria for\nresidential development to preserve residential neighborhoods.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a commercial building on Clement Avenue is a disaster.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the issue would be resolved with a [new] north\nPark Street code; neighborhoods have a thirty-foot height limit.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why the matter is being discussed now since the\narea is in the north of Lincoln Avenue planning area.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the City has chosen not to do a moratorium on\nPark Street; staff has allowed north of Park Street projects to move forward; the project\nmeets all rules and regulations; the City would retain complete control over what goes\nin.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS. NON-AGENDA\n(10-482) Jon Spangler, Alameda, raised questions regarding worker's compensation.\n(10-483) Luisa Vallejos, Alameda, discussed banning smoking.\nMayor Johnson stated staff has been working on the issue.\n(10-484) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, provided a handout and discussed Proposition 22.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(10-485) Consider Taking Action Regarding Calming Traffic on Residential Streets that\nHave Become Overburdened, Used as a \"Cut-Through\" or Experienced Other Traffic\nProblems.\nCouncilmember Matarrese gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated Council has asked about the issue in the past.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a 2003 Transportation Master Plan has a tool box list of\nsolutions, including traffic calming suggestions that the Public Works Department and\nFire Department worked on; the issue is about funding and implementation, not whether\nthe City has existing policies and tools available.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated people on Sherman Street have gathered petitions,\nbut no action has been taken.\nMayor Johnson stated a report should be brought back; the issue should be reviewed\non a citywide basis.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the Transportation Commission's job was to look at the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 17, "text": "issue on a citywide basis; the process has a big hole because the City effectively no\nlonger has a Transportation Commission.\nMayor Johnson stated the issue should be brought back.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated issues have been on the table for a while; the problem is not\nwhether the City has a Transportation Commission or not.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the wheel should not be reinvented; a more productive\ndirection would be to find funding to execute solutions.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated street repair is looking pretty decent throughout the City.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of bringing the matter back to Council.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-486) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Services\nHuman Relations Board (SSHRB).\nMayor Johnson nominated Rebecca Holder for appointment to the SSHRB.\n(10-487) Councilmember Gilmore stated in March, Council came to the conclusion that\nperformance reviews needed to be done for Charter Officers; the agreement was to\nhave performance reviews come back in September; that she asked about the matter at\nthe last meeting; she still has not received a response.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council would like to comment.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is not requesting comments from Council, but\nfrom staff; Council gave direction to staff; that she is wondering what has happened.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:08 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2010-6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:32 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and\nMayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(10-464) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (54956.9(b); Number of\nCases: One.\n(10-465) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9(a); Name of\nCase: Ottaviano V. City of Alameda. Not heard.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Johnson\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the City Council received a briefing\nfrom Legal Counsel; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 19, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER 5, 2010- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the meeting at 7:13 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers / Board Members / Commissioners\ndeHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and Mayor\nJohnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-488 CC/ARRA/10-69 CIC) Receive a Report on the Status of America's Cup\nThe Economic Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson inquired whether the Alameda Waterfront website is linked to the\nCity's website, to which the Economic Development Director responded in the negative.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated efforts should be made to link the Alameda Waterfront\nwebsite to the City's website.\nCouncilmember/Board Member/Commissioner Gilmore stated updates are provided via\nemail.\nVice Mayor/Board Member/Commissioner deHaan stated another challenge is to bring\na super carrier into Alameda within the next couple of years for Fleet Week.\n***\nMayor/Chair Johnson called a recess at 7:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:09\np.m.\n***\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n1\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 20, "text": "exceed $500,000\"; stated WETA would only get $400,000 if $400,000 comes in.\nThe Ferry Manager continued the presentation.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated having WETA take over the water side and not the land\nside is a good strategy; inquired whether Alameda would be required to maintain\nparking, to which the Ferry Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese stated the City has been waiting for a long\ntime; the Agreement has been well crafted.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor/Board Member deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated getting the bus service back to the [West End] ferry\nterminal would be good.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\n2\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-10-05", "page": 21, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the meeting at 11:26\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse and\n3\nRedevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission\nOctober 5, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-10-05.pdf"}