{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWednesday, November 3, 2010\nThe meeting convened at 7:29 p.m. with Chair Johnson presiding.\n1.\nROLL CALL\nPresent:\nChair Beverly Johnson\nBoardmember Lena Tam\nBoardmember Frank Matarrese\nBoardmember Marie Gilmore\nVice Chair Doug deHaan\n2.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\n2-A. Approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 6, 2010.\nMember Matarrese moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n3.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n3-A. Consider Request from Alameda Point Collaborative to Support their Community\nPlanning Efforts by Reimbursing Unpaid SunCal Consultant Expenses and\nCollateralizing a $50,000 Loan for Relocation Planning Studies Should Funds from\nPrivate Development Be Unavailable within 36 Months.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services provided an overview of the staff report.\nChair Johnson inquired if the expenditure is considered a predevelopment cost for SunCal, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager - Development Services answered in the affirmative. Chair\nJohnson inquired if staff has made efforts to have SunCal fulfill their commitment for payment.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services explained that the Alameda Point\nCollaborative (APC) has tried diligently, without success, to have SunCal fulfill its commitment.\nChair Johnson recommended continued efforts to pursue SunCal and inquired why funds from\nthe SunCal escrow account are not being used to pay this bill. The Executive Director\nexplained that the predevelopment escrow account is for obligations that SunCal has to the City\nand that the terms of the escrow account do not allow the City to direct the escrow agent to pay\nany invoices. Also, the City cannot interfere in the contractual relationship between SunCal and\nAPC.\nDoug Biggs, Executive Director of APC further explained that he has contacted SunCal multiple\ntimes to request payment, and the responses provided no resolution to the problem and\npayments have not been made. Chair Johnson asked Mr. Biggs if APC has filed a lawsuit\nagainst SunCal to collect the funds owed. Mr. Biggs explained that the contract SunCal\nrequired APC sign has a no-lawsuit clause and that APC would have to go through mediation.\nChair Johnson inquired whether APC has demanded mediation pursuant to its contract, to\nwhich Mr. Biggs responded in the negative. Chair Johnson recommended that APC go through\nthe binding arbitration process.", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 2, "text": "Member Matarrese commented that SunCal had no problem spending approximately $50,000\non an election mailer a month ago. Member Matarrese supports APC's request, but would like\nto require that APC start the proceedings on their contractual remedy to the outstanding bill.\nMember Gilmore requested an update and report on the status of the predevelopment costs,\nand of the ARRA budget. The Deputy City Manager - Development Services informed Member\nGilmore and the Board that staff will incorporate the ARRA budget and Predevelopment costs\ninformation into the update/staff report that will be presented to the Board in January.\nVice Chair deHaan inquired how the APC will pay back a $50,000 loan. Mr. Biggs explained\nthat the Project Implementation Loan (PIL) is from the Corporation for Supportive Housing.\nTraditionally, these loans are paid off by development fees, but since the development plans for\nAlameda Point are uncertain at this time, APC is asking the City to back them up.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated that the predevelopment planning\ncost will be wrapped into the total cost of the project and financed through every available\nfunding source to make the consolidation and relocation work.\nSpeakers: Jon Spangler spoke in support of APC's request.\nMember Matarrese motioned to approve the recommendation to collateralize $50,000 for\nthe pursuit of the planning study, with the requirement that the APC formally invoke their\nremedy in their contract in pursuit of reimbursement by SunCal. Member Matarrese also\nrequested that the work done by the contractor be under public domain so that it is not\nproprietary to APC since it is being underwritten by the ARRA. Vice Chair deHaan\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5\n4.\nORAL REPORTS\n4-A. Oral report from Member Matarrese, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) representative\n- Highlights of October 7 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nMember Matarrese did not attend the October 7th meeting but will attend the RAB meeting on\nNov. 4. Member Matarrese provided comments on Dr. Russell's highlights, stating that most of\nthe activities described are actual remediation activities. He called particular attention to the\nrecord of decision on Site 2 which is the southwest portion of the base. There was discussion of\na cap and cover for that contamination. Member Matarrese would like Dr. Russell to\nrecommend a strategy to make sure anything that is radioactive is removed from Site 2.\n5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nThere were no speakers.\n6.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n6-A. Presentation on Request for Qualifications for a Resource Team for Redevelopment\nof Alameda Point.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services gave a brief summary on steps staff is\ntaking to move the going forward process. In the next week or two, staff will send out a Request\nfor Qualifications (RFQ) for land use planning, urban design, sustainable green design and\ninfrastructure planning, civil engineering, transportation planning, fiscal impact land use", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 3, "text": "ARRA Secretary", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER - 3, 2010- -7:01 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:26 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam\nand Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 10-526]; the Agreement\nwith Gates + Associates [paragraph no. 10-528]; and the Second Contract Amendment\nwith Suarez and Munoz Construction [paragraph no. 10-529 were removed from the\nConsent Calendar for 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(10-526) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of October 13, 2010; and the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings of October 19, 2010. Approved.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the October 19, 2010 minutes note that the Public\nEmployee Evaluation item was cancelled; inquired whether the matter would be\nrescheduled, to which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the October 13th minutes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the October 19th minutes.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 2, "text": "Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Abstentions:\nCouncilmembers Gilmore and Tam - 2.\n(*10-527) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,493,347.67.\n(10-528) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into an Agreement in\nthe Amount of $284,800 with Gates + Associates for an Urban Greening Plan, including\na Parks Master Plan.\nIn response to Vice Mayor deHaan's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated the Urban\nGreening Planning Grant totals $250,000; $140,000 would be budgeted for a Parks\nMaster Plan; staff recommends augmenting an Urban Farm and Garden Plan.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired why $7,800 would need to be taken from the Golf\nEnterprise Fund.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services responded the money would pay for\nGates + Associates to look at a tree palate for the Golf Course.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is uncomfortable spending $140,000 from the\nGeneral Fund when swimming pool upgrade costs are unknown; the pools are a must\nhave.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the Emma Hood swimming pool is up and\nrunning; now, efforts are focusing on a solution for the Encinal swimming pool.\nMayor Johnson stated the Urban Greening Plan and swimming pool issues have never\nbeen an either or situation.\nThe Interim City Manager stated $140,000 would not solve the swimming pool\nproblems; a Park Master Plan has become compelling because the City has so many\ndisparate parks and facilities; a Park Master Plan would calculate an impact fee for new\ndevelopment; the Urban Greening Plan is a compelling document; inventory needs to\nbe done to ensure the best use of property.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she understands the total budget for the swimming\npools could exceed millions of dollars; her concern is that the City does not know how\nmuch it will cost to get to a stop-gap measure for opening and using the Encinal\nswimming pool until a long-term solution is found; that she does not have a problem\ncompleting the $284,800 Parks Master Plan but has concerns regarding the Farmer D\nand Public Health Law & Policy (PHLP) items; she considers the two items as \"nice to\nhave\".\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Farmer D item includes growing trees for street\ntree inventory.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 3, "text": "The Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the Farmer D item would\nalso include using some of the existing, vacant, undeveloped park land for community\ngardens.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Development Services stated the Urban Greening Plan\ngrant cannot be just for a Park Master Plan; the urban agricultural component plays an\nintegral part in receiving the grant.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there is one-time money in excess of $1\nmillion to for field turf.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the aggregate amount is\n$3 million.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated including the $140,000 would be a good idea to get\nthings going; the $3 million is a buffer; having a tree farm is a benefit; the Littlejohn Park\nredwood trees purchased from an outside vendor are smaller than those that came from\nthe Alameda Point Collaborative nursery.\nThe Interim City Manager stated swimming pool repairs are not going to be paid solely\nby the City.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how Kemper Sports would be involved with the landscape\nplanning.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the Golf Course is a recreational facility and an\nEnterprise Fund; stated the City is in negotiations with Kemper Sports; staff could look\nfor other ways to come up with $7,800 if Council does not want the money to come out\nof the Golf Enterprise Fund.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether part of the Kemper negotiations would include\nlandscape planning, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the landscape planning cost should be paid out of the Golf\nEnterprise Fund and reimbursed by Kemper Sports.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Golf Commission has been consulted on the\nmatter, to which the Golf Commission Chair responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Council assumes that Kemper Sports would take over\nlandscape planning which includes the storm water management problem and\nidentifying a tree palate that could use recycled water.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated said items would be included in negotiations\nnow; the current tree palate cannot use recycled water.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 4, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated this summer, the trees survived with recycled water; the\nrecycled water is a better quality.\nIn Response to Councilmember Tam's comments regarding the plan helping the School\nDistrict prioritize, the Interim City Manager stated later on tonight, Council will have an\nopportunity to discuss approving a Joint Use Agreement [paragraph no. 10-536\nincluding School District property and recreational parks and facilities could be\ndiscussed.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated swimming pools should be part of the Master Plan if the\nCity is going to have responsibility for pools.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the Master Plan could be amended to augment School\nDistrict facilities.\nSpeaker: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether adding [Golf Course] landscape planning now would\nbe cost effective, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the City could negotiate reimbursement with Kemper Sports.\nThe Interim City Manager stated [Golf Course] landscape planning has been included\nbecause staff would like to expand the tree inventory.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Golf Course trees were assessed; inquired whether the\nproposed landscape planning would not be folded into the overall tree philosophy.\nThe Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the project is vital; the\nGolf Course portion could be taken out in order to not hold up the Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated going forward makes sense; reimbursing the City [for $7,800]\ncould be part of the Kemper Sports negotiations.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is hearing two conflicting factual statements: 1)\nKemper Sports is already providing reports to the Golf Commission and has a\nlandscaping plan, and 2) Kemper Sports is not doing so now and the City would have to\nnegotiate; the City would save some money by taking $7,800 out of the Golf Enterprise\nFund to help fund the Plan.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated Kemper Sports is performing a general review\nof the trees to see which trees are diseased; there is no comprehensive, concerted\neffort to develop a tree palate.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he would prefer to take out the $7,800 and move\nforward; the landscaping plan could be included as part of Kemper Sports negotiations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated the $7,800 could be added as a requirement to Kemper Sports'\nobligations if the City negotiates a long-term lease; otherwise, the City would have to\nhire someone else at a higher price.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired where the $140,000 would come from, to which the\nInterim City Manager responded the Park Administration Program of the General Fund.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Park Administration budget includes\nconsulting services, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation with an\namendment to not have the $7,800 come from the Golf Course fund.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she can support the motion; inquired whether the total\nContract amount would be $276,900.\nThe Deputy City Manager - Administrative Services responded the Contract amount\nwould stay the same; the funding source would be different.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether she is hearing that the\nContract amount would be $284,800.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the contract amount would be $284,800; the Golf\nEnterprise Fund would not be touched.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the motion is to approve the $397,800 [total\nbudget for the Urban Greening Plan] or $284,800.\nCouncilmember Matarrese clarified that the motion is approval of appropriating\n$397,800 for all three components, having the $7,800 come from someplace other than\nthe Golf Enterprise Fund, and obtaining $7,800 reimbursement from Kemper Sports.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 3. Noes: Councilmembers\nGilmore and Tam - 2.\n(10-529) Recommendation to Approve a Second Contract Amendment in the Amount of\n$110,000 to Suarez and Munoz Construction, Inc. for the Webster Street/Wilver \"Willie\"\nStargell Avenue Intersection Project - Landscape & Irrigation Improvements, No. P.W.\n06-09-18.\nThe City Engineer reviewed items noted in an email from Bike Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore stated the Plans and Specifications seem to be different than\nwhat has been constructed; inquired whether the source of the discrepancy has been\ndiscovered and what has been done to ensure that the situation does not happen again.\nThe City Engineer responded costs were less because the contractor is a landscape\nand concrete contractor; stated the bicycle paths meet Caltrans' standard, which is an\neight-foot paved pathway with two-foot shoulders on each side; the bicycle paths do not\nmeet what Bike Alameda expected.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the ten-foot paved pathway was in the Plans\nand Specifications.\nThe City Engineer responded in the negative; stated the design engineer interpreted the\nbicycle path as a eight-foot paved pathway with two-foot shoulders on each side.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether staff would be more specific in the future.\nThe City Engineer responded staff and the consultant reached out to many\nstakeholders; stated Caltrans has standards regarding travel lanes and medium width;\nBike Alameda wanted a bicycle lane and pedestrian path; Mariner Square Loop was\nlooking at access to their facility; Catellus was looking at turn pockets; in the future, staff\nneeds to review all stakeholder requests to ensure that everything is checked off; the\nFifth Street bicycle lane cannot go down to Webster Street; staff feels people would be\nplaced in a dangerous situation; Caltrans does not allow bicycle lanes down Webster\nStreet; staff is looking into having a bicycle path down Neptune Park in the future.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated light stanchions sit outside the eight-foot pathway; extending\nthe pathway by two feet would not provide full usage because the light stanchions would\nbe in the middle.\nThe City Engineer stated the City cannot go toward Caltrans property because Caltrans\nhas a separation requirement between any pedestrian or bicycle facility and roadways;\noriginally, lights were in the landscape strips and needed to be moved because of a\nlarge storm drain line; some areas would be ten-feet wide; other areas would be nine\nand a half feet wide; the concrete pad would be level.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether light poles would be in the middle of the bike paths, to\nwhich the City Engineer responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the City has a ten-foot standard.\nThe City Engineer responded in the negative; stated the City uses the Caltrans'\nstandard.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would be the cost for widening the path to ten\nfeet, to which the City Engineer responded approximately $20,000.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 7, "text": "The Public Works Director stated right now, the path is eight feet wide with a two-foot\nshoulder; Bike Alameda wants o widen the path; Caltrans has agreed to allow widening\nthe path by two feet but will not allow the path to be designated as a combination\nbike/pedestrian path; five locations would have a nine and a half foot wide path.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated pedestrian and bicyclist safety is the main reason for\nwidening the existing bicycle/pedestrian path.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff could come back at the next Council meeting\nwith the Bicycle Master Plan; after adoption, staff would meet with the Transportation\nCommission and Bike Alameda; any standard deviations would be provided to the\nTransportation Commission and Bike Alameda before coming back to Council.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(*10-530) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the City Elevator Maintenance and Repairs, No. P. W. 10-10-28. Accepted.\n(*10-531) Resolution No. 14503, \"Ratifying Award of a Contract Pursuant to Section 3-\n15.2 of the Alameda City Charter in the Amount of $223,100, Including Contingencies,\nto Mountain Cascade to Pipeburst Existing 14 Inch VCP Storm Drain Pipe and Replace\nwith a 16 Inch HDPE Pipe on Eighth Street, Between Pacific Avenue and Lincoln\nAvenue.\" Adopted.\n(*10-532) Ordinance No. 3024, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Adding\nSubsection 23-8 (Encroachments Upon Public Property Prohibited).\" Finally passed.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-533) Address Questions from the September 21, 2010 Regular City Council\nMeeting Regarding Alameda Fire Department's Emergency Medical Service Delivery.\nThe Acting Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the transport cost, to which the Acting Fire Chief\nresponded $1,700; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many firefighters would be on duty every day now\nversus contracting out.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 8, "text": "The Acting Fire Chief responded twenty-four firefighters; stated the minimum would be\neighteen.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how response times and requests for mutual aid\nwould be affected if ALS service was not provided and staff decreased.\nThe Acting Fire Chief responded tactics and strategy would need to be adjusted; stated\ndropping to 18 firefighters could provide more risk; the City would need to rely more\nheavily on mutual aid.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how many firefighters are dispatched when a call\ncomes in, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded eighteen.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether only one call would be able to be handled at\na\ntime, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; continued the\npresentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the delta between staffing eighteen firefighters\nversus twenty-four firefighters, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded ambulance\nstaffing; continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Fire Department has an average, actual\nresponse time, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded internal standards are eight\nminutes for the ambulance and five minutes for first responders.\nMayor Johnson inquired where a stroke patient would be transported to, to which the\nActing Fire Chief responded County protocol requires cardiovascular or stroke patients\nto be transported to Alameda Hospital first.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda Hospital is a stroke center, to which the\nActing Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired where other communities send stroke patients, to which the\nActing Fire Chief responded certified stroke centers.\nCouncilmember Tam stated when she was on the Hospital Board, the County policy\nwas to take cardiovascular patients to the closest facility that has an emergency room;\nstroke patients are stabilized first and then transported to an emergency center.\nMayor Johnson stated seconds count; the longer a patient goes without proper care, the\nworse the damage; unfortunately, the protocol for Alameda residents is to go to\nAlameda Hospital for stabilization and then a stroke center; Alameda County\nestablishes the protocol; inquired whether there are designated cardiac centers, to\nwhich the Acting Fire Chief responding Summit Hospital is a designed cardiac center.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether cardiac patients need to go to Alameda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 9, "text": "Hospital first.\nThe Acting Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated paramedics have twelve lead\nmonitors; the monitors are connected to a cellular phone and goes directly to Summit\nHospital; a doctor reads the AKG and determines whether the patient needs to be\ntransported to Summit Hospital immediately for intervention.\nMayor Johnson requested a presentation on EMS protocols [transport].\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Hospital might be the fastest transport if there is\ntraffic.\nThe Acting Fire Chief stated people could request to be taken to a stroke center.\nMayor Johnson stated people are not aware of the option.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated someone told him that a stroke patient could request\nto be taken to a stroke center, but paramedics will take the stroke patient to Alameda\nHospital; the issue needs to be clarified; the protocol might need to be changed if it is\nnot in the best interest of the people of Alameda.\nMayor Johnson suggested having someone from the County Health Care District at a\nfuture presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether paramedics ask a stroke victim where they would\nlike to be transported, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded the policy is not set by\nthe Fire Department.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether stroke victims are advised that they are not being\ntransported to a stroke center.\nThe Acting Fire Chief responded the Fire Department is bound by policy to take stroke\nvictims to Alameda Hospital; stated stroke victims are asked which hospital they want to\nbe transported to; adult trauma patients are transported to Highland Hospital; child\ntrauma patients are transported to Children's Hospital.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a chart classifying ALS calls.\nThe Acting Fire Chief continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she recalls hiring an outside consultant to do a\nstudy of the Fire Department; inquired what happened to the study.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the outside consultant stopped short of a draft\nbecause he was unable to complete the report and recommended not going forward\nuntil the County was able to provide detailed information on how the $830,000 would be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 10, "text": "allocated and how the Health Services Agency management would change.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 9:50 p.m. and returned at 9:53 p.m.\n*\n(10-534) Receive a Report on Paramedics Plus Value Added Equipment and Services\nfor Alameda County Advanced Life Support First Responders.\nThe Acting Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Paramedics Plus would supply the Fire Department\nwith medications, to which the Acting Fire Chief responded Paramedics Plus would\nprovide medical supplies, not medications.\nMayor Johnson stated providing medications on a Countywide basis would make sense.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Fire Department has defibrillators\nThe Acting Fire Chief responded the Fire Department has twelve defibrillators;\nParamedics Plus would be responsible for replacing defibrillators.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda's paramedics have a lot to be proud of in terms of\nresponse times; requested that the Interim City Manager advise what are the next steps\non the annexation and assessment process.\nThe Interim City Manager stated a Closed Session has been scheduled to discuss the\nissues; a draft contract has been finalized from a business standpoint; the legal parts\nare now being reviewed; assuming Council approval, the goal would be to move\nexpeditiously in order to place the matter on the tax rolls in August for the subsequent\nyear.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the process is to get a contract finalized,\nassuming that there will be a Closed Session on November 16th; the October 19, 2010\nminutes reflect that questions were raised on the amount of cost associated with the\nuse of the trauma center and $140,000 first responder credit.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the $857,000 is the annual assessment for the City's\noverhead share of the EMS agency and its proportionate share of the trauma centers;\nthe County committed to taking the credit for first responder engines and applying the\namount to the past, accrued deficit.\nMayor Johnson stated the County is applying the credit to the arrears.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the deal is great.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 11, "text": "The Acting Fire Chief stated payment would take fifteen years and would be interest\nfree.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(10-535) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Commission on\nDisability Issues, Economic Development Commission (EDC) and Planning Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Susan Deutsch for appointment to the Commission on\nDisability Issues; and nominated Sim \"Kame\" Richards, Marine/Waterfront seat, and\nRobert Robillard, Retail/Commercial seat for appointment to the EDC.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:17 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\n11\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 12, "text": "", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL\nWEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER - - 3, 2010--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 6:10 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(10-523) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nAGL V. City of Alameda.\n(10-524) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nOttaviano V. City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced\nthat regarding AGL, the City Council received a briefing from its attorneys and provided\ndirection on legal strategy; regarding Ottaviano, the City Council met in Closed Session\nwith Defense Counsel in the matter of Ottaviano V. City of Alameda; the parties have\nagreed to settle all dispute on the matter in order to avoid further litigation costs; a copy\nof the Settlement Agreement is available in the City Clerk's office; the vote to approve\nthe settlement was unanimous.\n* *\nMayor Johnson called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting at 7:45 p.m. and\nreconvened the closed session at 10:45 p.m.\n*\n*\n*\n(10-525) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Significant exposure\nto litigation pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 54956.9; Number of cases:\nOne.\nDenise Eatton-May, Attorney for David Kapler, read a statement and submitted a copy\nfor the record.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting reconvened and Mayor Johnson announced\nthat regarding, Anticipated Litigation, the City Council received a briefing from Legal\nCounsel on a matter of significant exposure to litigation, including a settlement proposal\nfrom the potential claimant; the City Council provided direction to Legal Counsel and\ndeclined to approve the settlement proposal; the decision of the City Council was\nunanimous.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 14, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 12:25 a.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\n2\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY--NOVEMBER 3, 2010- -7:02 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 10:18 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam and\nMayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAgenda Item\n(10-536) Recommendation to Accept a Recommendation from the Joint Subcommittee\nof the City Council and the Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) School Board to\nDirect the Interim City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a 30-Year Agreement for\nOperation, Maintenance and Capital Improvements to Recreation Fields and Facilities\nCurrently Owned by AUSD.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated the School District would also bring the matter before the School\nBoard; the School District would have first priority for facility use.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the recent pool situation [closure] has sparked new\ninterest from School Board Subcommittee members to approve the agreement\nexpeditiously before a next crisis happens.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether different use terms would be established if\nKaufman Auditorium is included, stated there have been past issues about who can use\nthe facility and when.\nThe Interim City Manager responded perhaps things have changed because of the\neconomy; stated rent would be a revenue generator; the key would be to get full\nutilization.\nMayor Johnson stated in the past, groups have not been able to use Kaufman\nAuditorium because the cost is beyond their budget.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the City uses recreational fields and related facilities\nand is better than the School District at the core service; the City works with non-profits\nin utilizing facilities; the key is to strike an arrangement with the School District to start\nthe dialogue.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether pool maintenance and operation is a 60-40 split.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the City does all the scheduling and is\nresponsible for custodial services and water chemistry; stated the School District is\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 16, "text": "responsible for large capital items.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City and School District had an eight-year\nagreement, which has lapsed.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded the Agreement was signed in the 1960's,\nrenewed in 1982, and amended in 1994; the maintenance staff was all School District\nstaff prior to 1994; to increase efficiencies, the City took back maintenance staff back in\n1994; the intent was to start the clock in 1994 and go to 2014, but it did not get into the\nfinal agreement; the Agreement ended in 2002; the City has been operating under the\nold agreement.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the concept would be to get a more uniform,\nholistic arrangement for all facilities under one umbrella agreement.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded having one entity schedule everything\nwould be more efficient.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether part of the effort would be to help the School\nDistrict market and maximize use and revenue through leases.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded in the affirmative; stated a rate structure\nand priority use would be established.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether complaints regarding rates would fall on the\nCouncil, to which the Recreation and Park Commission responded complaints would go\nthrough the Recreation Commission.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the agreement would include capital and maintenance,\nto which the Recreation and Park Director responded the agreement would include\neverything.\nMayor Johnson stated performing an inventory and assessment is important to ensure\nan analysis of conditions and regular, appropriate maintenance.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the percentage of recovery through fees, to which\nthe Recreation and Park Director responded minimal.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired where funding would come from for the additional fields.\nThe Recreation and Park Director responded funding would be part of negotiations with\nthe School District.\nThe Interim City Manager stated that she included the Kaufman Auditorium because\nrevenue generated from the use of the auditorium could offset another recreational\nasset.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2010-11-03", "page": 17, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan stated fees do not take care of park maintenance; the Recreation\nand Park Department's budget needs to be safeguarded; public safety has a way of\neroding Recreation and Park Department dollars; the challenge would be finding a way\nto improve the funding stream.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council has discussed savings with synthetic turf; the\nmission is not to protect the budget; the budget is to protect public parks; policy needs\nto be established regarding leagues exclusively using a public asset when a fee is paid,\nwhich has a price tag.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion with direction to follow up on earlier\ndiscussion [Park Master Plan, paragraph no. 10-528 regarding incorporating the\nfacilities in the larger [Park Master] Plan.\nUnder discussion, the Interim City Manager stated School District recreational facilities\nwould be included in the Master Plan inventory.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether basketballs courts at Alameda Point would be\nincluded, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point has a dog park.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Alameda Point has a skate park and gym also.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the boat docks would be included.\nThe Interim City Manager responded everything would be included in the inventory.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point also has a recreation hall.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting at 10:39 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\n3\nNovember 3, 2010", "path": "CityCouncil/2010-11-03.pdf"}