{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 19, 2011--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-382) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association on the 27th Annual Art\nand Wine Faire.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), presented glasses to the\nCouncil.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-383) Dennis Carol, Alameda, expressed his concern with the Crown Memorial\nBeach incident and the political organization of the Fire Department.\n(11-384) Jeannie D'Amato, Alameda; Leslie Gomez, Alameda; and former\nCouncilmember Tony Daysog discussed District 31 undergrounding.\nMayor Gilmore requested the Assistant City Manager to follow up with the Alameda\nMunicipal Power (AMP) General Manager regarding the undergrounding issue; stated\nanother public meeting is in order.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that she spoke to the AMP General Manager earlier\nthis evening; a Public Utilities Board meeting was held last night; another meeting is\nscheduled for August 15th.\n(11-385) Kathy Moehring, Alameda, stated Angela's Restaurant provided Christmas\nmeals to the public last year; Angela's is having a fund raiser this Saturday; invited\nCouncil to the event.\n(11-386) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated a ribbon cutting and inauguration for the\nEstuary Crossing shuttle from Alameda to Oakland will be held on August 15th\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 2, "text": "CONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Plans and Specifications for Bids for Rehabilitation\nof Tennis Courts [paragraph no. 11-394], the Amendment to the Ambulance and\nParamedic Provider Agreement [paragraph no. 11-395], the Resolution Approving a\nRevised Memorandum of Understanding with the Alameda Police Officers Association\n[paragraph no. 11-397], the Resolution Affirming Support for the 34th America's Cup\n[paragraph no. 11-399], and the Resolution Authorizing Open Market Contract with\nYamaha Corporation [paragraph no. 11-400 were removed from the Consent Calendar\nfor discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*11-387) Minutes of the Special City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority and Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on June 28, 2011;\nand the Special Joint City Council, Community Improvement Commission and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners Meeting and Special and Regular City Council\nMeetings held on July 5, 2011. Approved.\n(*11-388) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,302,430.39.\n(*11-389) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $432,200, Including\nContingencies, to Gallagher & Burk, Inc. for Parking Rehabilitation of the Main Street\nand Harbor Bay Ferry Terminals, No. P.W. 05-11-14. Accepted.\n(*11-390) Recommendation to Award Contract in the Amount of $79,474, Including\nContingencies, to Republic Intelligent Transportation Services to Remove / Replace\nLED Signals for Traffic and Pedestrian Signal Heads/Indicators in the City of Alameda,\nNo. P.W. 04-11-08. Accepted.\n(*11-391) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $146,912, Including\nContingencies, to Robert C. Terry, DBA Comfort Air Mechanical Systems, for the\nAnnual Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems Maintenance in Various City\nFacilities, No. P.W. 06-20-28. Accepted.\n(*11-392) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations, Phase 3: Bay Farm\nIsland Pump Station Rehabilitation, No. P.W. 12-10-35, and Standardize Equipment for\nSpecific Major Components for All City of Alameda Sewer Pump Stations. Accepted.\n(*11-393) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of Holophane Streetlights for the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 3, "text": "Park Street Streetscape, Lincoln Avenue to Webb Avenue, and Central Avenue to San\nJose Avenue, No. P.W. 10-09-30 Project from W.W. Grainger, Inc. in the Amount of\n$350,000, Including Contingencies, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All\nNecessary Documents. Accepted.\n(11-394) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Rehabilitation of Tennis Courts (Various Locations), No. P.W. 05-11-10.\nThe City Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the estimate for the project.\nThe City Engineer responded $350,000 has been allocated; stated Leydecker Park\nwould be resurfaced with a new floating surface; Lower Washington Park and Krusi\nPark would be repaired by placing wide fiber tape over the surface.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired why Leydecker Park would receive different treatment and\nwhy Krusi Park improvements would be included if sufficient funds are available.\nThe City Engineer responded the Recreation and Parks Department selected Leydecker\nPark for the premium court installation; stated that Krusi Park needs less repair.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Recreation Commission and staff went through a\nprioritization process.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Measure WW bond criteria requires that an improvement\nlasts 25 years.\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 7:25 p.m. and returned at 7:26 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-395) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to\nthe City of Alameda Ambulance and Paramedic Provider Agreement with Alameda\nCounty, and Receive an Update on Related Legislation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired why Section 2.4 of the 1999 Agreement is not in the 2010\nAgreement.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded Section 2.4 dealt with non-emergency transports\nbetween nursing homes and hospitals; stated the language was put in the 1999\nAgreement because the County offered the City the opportunity to help off set operating\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 4, "text": "costs once the system was built out; that he does not know why the language has been\nleft out of the 2010 Agreement; the former Acting Fire Chief was advised by the former\nInterim City Manager that the County did not have the authority to grant the City the\nExclusive Operating Areas (EOA) for non-emergency transports; getting the EOA back\ninto the 2010 Agreement would depend on negotiations with the County.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated the City would discuss adding the language back with\nthe County; the County's Deputy Counsel has advised her that the language was not\nappropriate for the Agreement.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City received anything of value in return when\nSection 2.4 was removed, to which the Interim Fire Chief responded nothing that he can\nfind.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what would be the practical impact if the City\nprovided all non-emergency transports.\nThe Interim Fire Chief responded the City would have the opportunity to review several\noptions for providing inter-facility, non-emergency transport; stated the Fire Department\ncould be used as part of the transport system; others could be hired to provide the\nservice or a contract could be provided to an ambulance provider that is already in\nbusiness for a portion of the fees.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether having Alameda Hospital pay an\nambulance fee to the City would be reasonable.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated when fee schedules were discussed about ten months\nago; the former Acting Fire Chief did not feel that the Fire Department should transport\npatients from one hospital to another.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the December 7, 2010 minutes note that the former Acting\nFire Chief discussed the importance of having the EOA in order to be a provider of\nemergency ambulance and advanced life support services; read what Section 2.4\nstated; stated an EOA is something the County can clearly do; the City has not\nrequested an EOA in the past; the City does not have the EOA option because the\nsection is not in the 2010 Agreement.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the December 7th staff report discussed advanced\nlife support and emergency services; Section 2.4 addressed non-emergency ambulance\ntransport; people could be picked up from a convalescent hospital and delivered to a\ndoctor's appointment or rehabilitation facility using City personnel or subcontracting out\nto a private entity and taking a cut as the exclusive provider.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the County subcontracts the services, which is a\nrevenue generator.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 5, "text": "The Interim Fire Chief stated a former EMS Director developed a report detailing\nrevenues; that he requested the report and would provide it to Council.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the Alameda Hospital ambulance is licensed,\nto which the Interim Fire Chief responded that he does now know.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Interim Fire Chief stated the\nCounty has the right to award contracts and EOA's throughout the County for non-\nemergency ambulance transports.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council is very interested in adding Section 2.4 language to the\nAgreement.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(*11-396) Reject the Sole Bid and Resolution No. 14609, \"Authorizing Open Market\nNegotiations of a Contract Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for\nPark Street Streetscape, Lincoln Avenue to Webb Avenue, and Central Avenue to San\nJose Avenue, No. P. W. 10-09-30, Contingent Upon Caltrans Approval of Cost\nEffectiveness/Publio Interest Finding.\" Adopted.\n(11-397) Resolution No. 14610, \"Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding\n(MOU) Between the Alameda Police Officers Association and the City of Alameda for\nthe Period Beginning January 3, 2010 and Ending June 29, 2013.\" Adopted.\nThe Human Resources Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the MOU is the same as the one approved\nfor the Fire Fighters, to, which the Human Resources Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether staff had been in negotiations for eighteen months to\ntwo years, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated public safety already pays the entire [employee] PERS\ncontribution; inquired whether public safety would be paying the City's portion.\nThe Human Resources Director responded public safety would be paying the 2%\nportion of the City's contribution; stated currently, public safety pays 9% towards\npension; the revised MOU would result in public safety paying 11%.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether other cities have public safety pay the full\nemployee and part of the city contribution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 6, "text": "The Human Resources Director responded most public agencies public safety pay\nsome portion of the employee's contribution; a 9% employee contribution is required by\nState law; however, employers can pay a portion of the employee contribution; many\nhave and continue to do so; years ago, the City opted to have employees pay the 9%\nemployee contribution; under the revised MOU, public safety would still pay the 9% and\nwould pick up 2% of the City's contribution.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City would be breaking new ground in a good way.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Human Resources Director stated\nthe estimated $459,000 savings [for future retiree healthcare] would not be immediate.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what would be the savings in the first year, to which\nthe Human Resources Director responded $3,600 in 2011 and $20,200 for 2012.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Fire MOU has similar savings, to which the\nHuman Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the combined savings would be approximately $1\nmillion per year, to which the Human Resources Director responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City would be cutting its future public safety\nhealthcare liability in half, to which the Human Resources Director responded almost\nhalf by elimination of the City paying spousal coverage.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the proposed change would be a very significant\nstructural change; Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) have been in place since\nthe early 1990's; this is the first time a significant change would be made.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Police Officers have not received a raise in the last six\nyears.\nThe Human Resources Director responded Police Officers would not receive a raise for\nsix years [going back and] through the term of the MOU.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated savings would be gradual.\nThe Human Resources Director stated savings would be realized fairly soon because\ncurrent public safety employees would be reducing the amount of the current entitled\nbenefit.\nMayor Gilmore stated the negotiating process was not easy for either side; a lot of\npeople think that the City has the power to impose its will on bargaining units, which is\nnot true; once negotiations start, a contract is confidential; going forward, there will be a\nthirty-day comment period before negotiations start; at a certain point, all proposals are\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 7, "text": "put on the table; new proposals cannot be put on the table after a certain date.\nThe Human Resources Director stated both parties have to agree to put new proposals\non the table past a certain date; the City Manager would schedule a meeting in\nSeptember about the open process.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether all MOU's would be reviewed in September,\nto which the Human Resources Director responded all MOU's coming up for\nnegotiations.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the [Police] MOU would have binding\narbitration, to which the Human Resources Director responded the MOU does not have\nbinding interest arbitration.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated what is done for one union should be done for all.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated AC Transit has provision for imposing an agreement;\nAC Transit did so, which went to court; the court required AC Transit to settle at the\nbargaining table.\nCouncilmember deHaan discussed his concerns with the impacts on the General Fund\nbudget.\nMayor Gilmore stated pushing for more advantageous terms would have taken a lot\nlonger and long-term structural concessions might not have been realized.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated wages have not increased since June 2007 and would\nnot be given for two more years; wage erosion has occurred over the last four years;\napproving the Fire MOU did not end the process; the process is on-going.\nCouncilmember Tam stated cooperation between the City and unions results in good\nfaith negotiations, unlike what happened with AC Transit [unilaterally imposing an\nagreement].\nSpeakers: Red Wetherill, Alameda; and Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta thanked the Police Officers Association for\nengaging in a good faith bargaining process, making a commitment to be part of the\nsolution, and helping the City achieve near and long term savings; stated many cities\nprovided wage increases to public safety units within the last six years and then had to\nroll wages back; public safety would be sustaining a six-year commitment to the City's\nfinancial health by not taking any wage increases and decreasing overall compensation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 8, "text": "through additional pension contributions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he strongly supports the Police Officers; sixty-four\npercent of the Fiscal Year 2012-2013 budget would be one time savings; future\nobligations have not been addressed.\nMayor Gilmore stated the OPEB liability has almost been cut in half; significant\nstructural changes have been made to take care of future liabilities.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested that the Human Resources Director explain OPEB\nchanges.\nThe Human Resources Director stated the OPEB liability would be reduced by\napproximately $1 million through the Fire MOU and proposed Police MOU.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated there are two long-term issues: one is the additional 2%\ncontribution towards the PERS benefit; the other is that the City would be reducing the\nfuture cost of OPEB; the $70 million liability would be brought down and would not\naccumulate to the extent it has; instead of accumulating a liability for a retired employee\nand their spouse, the City would be accumulating a liability for the retiree only, which\nwould be significant.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the $75 million liability increased to $82 million in the\nlast year; in September, everything should be put on the table to understand what\nneeds to be done to weather the storm.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council has acknowledged that the economy will not get better in\nthe next four or five years and that the City is heavily dependant on property tax\nrevenues; Council has opted to discuss issues in September rather than January and\nhas given direction to the City Manager to initiate talks with all bargaining units.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes: Councilmember\ndeHaan - 1.\n(*11-398) Resolution No. 14611, \"Approving a Revised Memorandum of Understanding\nBetween the Alameda Police Managers Association and the City of Alameda for the\nPeriod Beginning February 28, 2010 and Ending June 29, 2013.\" Adopted.\n(11-399) Resolution No. 14612, \"Affirming the City's Support for the 34th America's Cup\nand the City's Participation in the Activities Surrounding These Events.\" Adopted.\nThe Business Retention and Attraction Development Manager gave a brief\npresentation.\nSpeakers: Leslie Cameron, Bay Ship & Yacht Company; Jack Boeger, AC 34\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 9, "text": "Committee; and Jim Oddie, AC 34 Committee.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City takes the lead and usually does the planning; the City\nhas no expertise in the America's Cup or maritime industry and would be looking to the\nspeakers for contacts and expertise.\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked the speakers for all the hard work and interest; stated\nnow is the time to move forward.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the old berths near the Hornet should be considered for\nuse.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the dredging should be pretty well completed by the\ntime they would be needed.\nMs. Cameron stated clean up has started; expediting the clean up would help.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City should consider renting out berths, which\nwould help pay to make the berths useable.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that the Acting Community Development Director work with\nthe speakers to prioritize the areas that are more important.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated that she would be happy to\ncoordinate the effort and talk to the Navy.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated berthing space would be at a premium; the City should\nrepair the berths as long as the numbers work out.\nMayor Gilmore stated that staff should start moving now in order to project the idea that\nAlameda is in the game.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she was told that Alameda has approximately 1,200\nberths; suggested working on marketing and reviewing other items that might require\ncapital.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated some of the berths would be for visitors; teams do not\nlike to be adjacent to competitors; vacant hanger space is available; the Restoration\nAdvisory Board is addressing the [sea plane] lagoon, which could be a resource.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked everyone for all of the time and commitment; stated\nopportunities are available to generate revenue for the City; third parties will want to\nhave a clear statement regarding the City's intentions with respect to the American's\nCup, which is provided by the proposed resolution that the America's Cup Committee\ncan use while pursuing opportunities; adoption of the resolution is important to move\nforward.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 10, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(11-400) Resolution No. 14613, \"Authorizing the Open Market Contract Between the\nCity of Alameda and Yamaha Corporation Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City\nCharter to Lease 120 Golf Carts in the Amount Not to Exceed $360,000.\" Adopted.\nDino Lazaro, Kemper Sports Golf Shop Manager, gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated golf carts are the number one concern for golfers;\nperiodically, carts need to be leased on weekends when there is a lot of activity;\ncommended staff for pursuing the matter.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam echoed commendations, especially in\nnegotiating to have Yamaha Corporation pick up the $96,000 in balloon payments from\nthe old lease.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*11-401) Ordinance No. 3033, \"Amending Sections 2-1.1 and 2-1.5 of Article I (The\nCity Council and Meetings of the City Council) of Chapter II (Administration) to Modify\nthe Meeting Time and Deadline for Submission of Matters.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-402) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14614, \"Approving Tentative Map\n8060 and Density Bonus Application PLN10-0262.\" Adopted.\n***\nVice Mayor Bonta left the dais at 8:41 p.m. and returned at 8:43 p.m. and\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:42 p.m. and returned at 8:44 p.m.\n*\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired when the Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC)\nwould become involved.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded very quickly, stated the many conditions of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 11, "text": "approval need to be met; the final map would come back to Council for approval and\nlots would be recorded once conditions are met; the two acres of open space include a\ncertain amount of land on the northern side which is owned by the Army Corps of\nEngineers and would require BCDC approval; the proposed resolution requires\ncompletion of the park final design and Army Corps of Engineers and BCDC approval\nbefore the final map will be approved.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the property would be entitled once the final map is\napproved.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the property would be entitled but building\npermits would not be granted until design review for the architectural and landscape is\ncomplete.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff and the community have gone through a lot of work; inquired\nwhat would happen if the property owners sell off the property, what type of assurances\nthe City would have that the property would be built the way the City says it should be\nbuilt, and whether the City would have any rights on how the property could be\ntransferred and to whom; stated that she would not want the property to be transferred\nand have someone sit on it for five or ten years.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded Council approved a Settlement Agreement last\nOctober; a number of the exhibits are model documents to be used for the project; the\nproperty owner would be bound to adhere to Settlement Agreement requirements;\nassignment provisions would provide protection.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated 90 plus conditions are part of the map and\nentitlement which runs with the land; Settlement Agreement commitments and an\nEnvironmental Impact Report have been baked into the comprehensive list of\nconditions; any buyer would know what the expectations would be for the next steps.\nMayor Gilmore requested clarification on the timing.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the economy is working against the City; having\na Settlement Agreement is advantageous; commitments have been made to financially\nassist the project with revenue generated by the project, which has a clock; the sale of\nthe land would start the clock; the City's commitment to help financially may expire at a\ncertain point if the land sells and nothing happens; the site has significant blight; there\nare some significant concerns with building conditions; at a certain point, the City may\nneed to proceed with some type of enforcement action.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated the Settlement Agreement has a\ntwo-year timeframe for meeting a number of obligations.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would be the assessed value of the transfer tax, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded that he is not prepared to answer.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 12, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager\nresponded 21 to 28 of the 182 units would be in a single rental building; stated multi-\nfamily units would be affordable and market rate rentals; townhouses and single family\nhomes would be on individual fee, simple lots; Elm Street and Blanding Avenue would\nbe dedicated to the City; the park and open space would remain part of the project and\nwould be built, owned, and maintained by the project; the entire two acres would have\na\npublic access easement.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated that staff is in real property\nnegotiations with the owner for an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA) to implement\nfinancial provisions of the Settlement Agreement; estimated revenues could be provided\nwhen staff comes back to Council for the OPA approval.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the streets would be dedicated to the City but\nmaintained by the project, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested clarification on obligations that would need to be\nmet in the first two years to trigger the City's financial obligation.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated objectives would include tentative\nmap consideration, the OPA, design approvals, and affordable housing agreements; a\nlot of the obligations would be transferred into the OPA and would have to be met to\nreceive financial assistance.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the clock would start running when the\nproperty transfers, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated or when major improvements start.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what would be the incentive for construction to start.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded everyone wants to develop a project that\ncould start as soon as possible; stated under the current agreement, less financial help\nwould be available the longer the project sits.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated stronger incentives should be provided to ensure that\nthe project moves forward.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated an outside date could be provided\nin the OPA in which financial assistance would go away if performance measures have\nnot been met.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested that staff explore different options; inquired whether\nremediating the blight has a timeline.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 13, "text": "The Planning Services Manager responded not currently; stated the environmental\ncleanup has started on two-thirds of the property.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a phasing schedule should be set for remediating the\nblight; inquired about the width of Elm Street.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded there are two lanes in either direction as\nwell as a parking lane.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the final design needs to clearly show that the public\nstreet leads to a public park, and the street does not look like a driveway; inquired about\nparking.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded internal streets would have 42 public\nparking spaces.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether houses would have garages, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded all but 30 of the 182 units would have a two-car\ngarage.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how public parking would be ensured for park visitors;\nstated streets surrounding her house are jammed with overflow parking; that she is\nconcerned the same thing would happen.\nMayor Gilmore stated having an elevator or master bedroom on the first floor would be\na great alternative for disabled access.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated alternative floor plans have been integrated into\nthe project design for disabled homebuyers.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's concern about street width, the Public Works\nDirector provided street width information; stated the left side of the intersection has an\n8-foot planting area which could be used to reach 28 feet; a condition would have to be\nadded to the resolution.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what is normal street width, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded 36 feet, which includes two parking lanes.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether having streets narrow at the beginning or end of\na street would be advantageous to calm traffic.\nThe Public Works Director responded intersection bulb outs are done for pedestrian\nsafety; middle of the block bulb outs calm traffic.\nPhil Banta, Phil Banta & Associates representing Applicant, stated space would be\nneeded for signage announcing the park; bulb outs would hide trash bins; requested\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 14, "text": "consideration of allowing said items.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about the adjacent property road\nwidening, Mr. Banta stated the adjacent property has an easement; widening the road\ncould be done if the self-storage area was ever developed into residential; having two\ndriveways right next to each other creates a pedestrian sidewalk situation that is not\neasy to resolve; bulb outs are used is to get the center aligned as closely as possible.\nThe Public Works Director suggested a condition be that the Applicant and City will\nwork together to ensure that the entrance to Elm Street at Clement Avenue looks and\nappears like a public street and that trash enclosures will be re-examined.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated\nthe Applicant anticipates 30 of the 182 units having one-car garages.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that public parking will be a premium; inquired whether\nthe City would have redevelopment money.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded a lot depends upon what happens at the\nState level; stated money would be generated by the project; a small portion would be\nrefunded back to the development for eligible expenses.\nThe Acting Community Development Director stated the obligation was created with the\nOctober 2010 Settlement Agreement before the Governor's proposed budget cuts; the\nOPA would implement the obligation that the Community Improvement Commission\n(CIC) already committed to in October.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff foresees any more density bonus\nprojects.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded north of Park Street has a few sites that\nmight be big enough to qualify; stated Alameda Point and the South Shore Post Office\nhave been discussed.\nSpeakers: Robb Ratto, PSBA; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning Board; and Karen Bey,\nAlameda.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the waterfront access, blight removal, transit-oriented design,\nand the universal design for buyers with disabilities are all exciting components of the\nproject; inquired what would be the plan for the property owner to sell the property and\nmove the project forward.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the City's role is to facilitate redevelopment\nof a private piece of property, get a project approved, and provide some type of financial\nassistance incentive down the road; the City has no authority to screen or reject\nhomebuilders.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 15, "text": "The Acting Community Development Director stated the Settlement Agreement has\nprovisions regarding assignment or transfer of the rights; the Settlement Agreement\nstates that transferring or assigning rights has to be done with a person or entity who is\nqualified to build the reduced density alternative; similar provisions would be in the\nOPA.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would like to explore ways for putting in a\nphasing schedule; the City can say that the financial incentives are triggered by the\napproved map, not when the property is sold or major construction starts; staff should\nbe given direction to ensure the street appears public, not like a private driveway, and to\ndetermine how to provide parking for the park; inquired whether a phasing schedule\nshould be established for park improvements.\nThe Acting City Attorney responded the conditions of approval have a requirement for a\nphasing schedule at a certain point of time.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated the conditions of approval also establish specific\nphasing for the completion of open space and affordable housing.\nThe Acting City Attorney stated the property owners are already aware that the City has\nthe ability to do some self help in terms of the hazards on the site if postponement\noccurs.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution with amendments to: 1)\nexplore a phasing schedule, 2) provide financial incentives being triggered by approval\nof the [final] map, 3) ensure the street has the appearance of a public street, and 4)\nprovide public parking for the park.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing facility would\nbe deconstructed or demolished.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded current conditions require photo\ndocumentation of the demolition-recycling requirement; there is no requirement for a\nparticular deconstruction.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-403) Ordinance No. 3034, \"Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of\nAlameda, California, Determining It Will Comply with the Alternative Voluntary\nRedevelopment Program Pursuant to Part 1.9 of Division 24 of the California Health and\nSafety Code in Order to Permit the Continued Existence and Operation of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 16, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta requested clarification on what the City would receive for $5.2 million.\nThe Development Services Division Manager responded the City would be able to\nacquire and rehabilitate the Islander Hotel; move forward with Alameda Point\nredevelopment, the Boatworks project, and projects currently in the works could\nproceed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Gilmore stated the check should be accompanied by a strongly worded letter\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 17, "text": "outlining the City's displeasure and listing projects that could have been done within the\ncommunity.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a photocopy of the check should be put in a press\nrelease to the media.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-404) Mayor Gilmore stated a regional Joint Policy Committee (JPC) is working on\nstrategies for addressing climate change resilience and economic vitality; the JPC is\ncomposed of the Association of Bay Area Governments, Bay Area Air Quality\nManagement District, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and BCDC; the JPC\nserves as the forum for coordinating policy initiatives among the four agency partners;\nthe JPC's goals in relationship to climate change are reducing regional green house gas\nemissions and adapting to climate change.\n(11-405) Mayor Gilmore thanked the community for participating in the Lawrence\nBerkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) event; stated that she is proud of the community;\nthe community put its best foot forward and showed enthusiasm and willingness to\nembrace LBNL; thanked staff and community volunteers who made the event possible.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThis agenda was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 18, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nTUESDAY, July 19, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 10:19 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-056) Approve the Minutes of the Joint City Council, ARRA and Community Improvement\nCommission Meeting of June 28, 2011.\n(*11-057)\nApprove the Second Amendment to the Lease with St. George Spirits to Hangar 21\nto Allow Qualified Shell Improvements Valued at $450,000 Over a Three Year\nPeriod.\n(*11-058) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with\nRussell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point\nExtending the Term for Four Months and Adding $94,200 to the Budget.\nMember deHaan pulled item 3-B (St. George Spirits lease) for clarification.\nMember deHaan expressed concern that the ARRA was giving credits toward shell\nimprovements that should be considered \"tenant improvements', since the building can only be\nused for the current tenant's purposes. Nanette Mocanu, Economic Development Division\nManager, explained that staff had the same concerns and discussed the type of uses. The\nproposed improvements would, in fact, make the buildings more publicly enticing because of the\nuniversal improvements, which include the creation of a public spirits alley, larger retail space,\nbeautifying the lawn, and painting the exterior.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Member\nJohnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\nMember deHaan moved for approval of Item 3-B. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-059) Presentation on Alameda Point Collaborative Community Planning Process.\nThe Alameda Point Project Manager introduced Doug Biggs, APC Executive Director, gave a\npresentation regarding the Collaborative future at Alameda Point and its site planning process.", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 19, "text": "take as much property, either through FOST, and discussing a FOSET (Finding Of Suitability\nfor Early Transfer), potentially finding more property beyond what is FOSTable. That\nproperty would all be at no cost to the extent that it stayed within the development\nenvelope plan for the reuse plan. That may not be enough development. At some\nfuture date there may be the need to do something different to develop the property.", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 20, "text": "The EDC MOA would have to be amended to have an enforcement mechanism so that\nif development exceeded the envelope for the reuse plan, then the Navy would\nparticipate in some fashion on the back end.\nMember Johnson stated that amending the EDC MOA to include the enforcement\nmechanism is a good approach. Chair Gilmore agreed and looks forward to the report in\nSeptember.\nMember deHaan stated he was impressed with the unifying voice and turnout of the\ncommunity for the July 13th LBNL support workshop/BBQ.\n7. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:53 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-07-19", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 19, 2011--6:00 - P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:09 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(11-379) Public Employment - (54957); Title: City Attorney\n(11-380) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency negotiators: Human\nResources Director; Employee organizations: All bargaining units.\n(11-381) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Case Name: Petition for\nLocal Tax Reallocation of the City of Livermore; Account Number: 099-600375,\nCalifornia State Board of Equalization.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Public Employment, direction was provided to the Human\nResources Director regarding City Attorney selection process; regarding Labor, the\nHuman Resources Director brief the City council on negotiations with Alameda Police\nOfficers Association, Alameda Police Management Association, and Alameda Fire\nManagers Association; regarding Existing Litigation, the Acting City Attorney brief the\nCouncil and was given direction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:57 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\nJuly 19, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-07-19.pdf"}