{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - FEBRUARY 7, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\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(12-032) Proclamation declaring February 7, 2012 as Alameda Islanders U12 Boys\nSoccer Champions Recognition Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to the team.\nPeter Holmes, Alameda Soccer Club President, presented jerseys to the Mayor and\nCity Manager.\n(12-033) Mayor Gilmore announced that the word of the day is \"dreaming\" in celebration\nof the Season for Non-Violence.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-034) Carol Chamberlain, Alameda, discussed the Alameda Naval Air Museum.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced the contract with Graphtek [paragraph no. 12-037 was\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-035) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meeting held on January 3,\n2012. Approved.\n(*12-036) Ratified bills in the amount of $8,818,055.42.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 2, "text": "(12-037) Recommendation to Approve a One-Year Contract With Graphtek Advertising\nand Design in an Amount Not to Exceed $6,000 for Technical Support for the City's\nWebsite.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; inquired whether the\nCity would be moving toward a new platform in July, to which the Information\nTechnology Division Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City would be free from the Graphtek\nContract, to which the Information Technology Division Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe City Manager stated he would be very disappointed if the City is not on board with a\ndifferent non-proprietary site by July 1st.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the [website] survey has been published, to\nwhich the Deputy City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager inquired what type of comments has been received.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded good criticisms and critiques have been given;\nstated people want a more user friendly site.\nThe City Manager stated the goal is to have a website that can be easily navigated with\na two-way relationship.\n(*12-038) Resolution No. 14650, \"Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for Island\nCity Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2\". Adopted.\n(*12-039) Resolution No. 14651, \"Appointing an Engineer and an Attorney for\nMaintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove)\". Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-040) Resolution No. 14652, \"Appointing John W. Knox White as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.\" Adopted.\n(12-040 A) Resolution No. 14653, \"Appointing Kristoffer K\u00f6ster as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 3, "text": "The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented a Certificate of\nAppointment to Mr. Knox White.\n(12-041) Recommendation to Appoint Members of the Open Government Commission.\nCouncilmembers noted the names and backgrounds of their appointees.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-042) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Crown Beach Tragedy.\nThe Police and Fire Chiefs gave a Point Presentation; the Fire Chief provided a\nhandout.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Police Chief stated the Police\nDepartment would be in a support role for water rescue incidents unless a criminal\nelement is involved; then, a unified command would be utilized; nothing prohibits\nofficers from taking independent action in an emergency.\nThe Fire Chief stated the tabletop exercise held in January involved said elements.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who would take the lead role in suicide intervention, to\nwhich the Police Chief responded the Police Department.\nThe Police and Fire Chiefs continued the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how different [communication] equipment plays into what needs\nto be done on a regional basis.\nThe Police Chief responded the new P25 radio system would allow all surrounding\njurisdictions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties to communicate; stated the system\nshould be up and running by the end of 2012.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the new equipment would tie into what the Coast\nGuard uses.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Fire Department has marine radios and can communicate\nwith the Coast Guard; stated Oakland has a different system, which presents some\nproblems.\nThe City Manager stated the inoperable ability problem has been discussed at City\nManager's meetings.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 4, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Police Chief stated that the Alameda\nCounty Sherriff's Department has an 85-foot vessel and two smaller vessels; the\nvessels' use is limited; the vessels' availability has been discussed; staffing is limited;\nthe City would not be able to use the vessels; operating the 85-foot vessel requires\nspecific certifications.\nCouncilmember Tam stated it appears that the City provides more support to the\nCounty.\nThe Police Chief stated the County is an excellent partner for law enforcement; the\nvessels have liability and training issues.\nThe Police and Fire Chiefs continued the presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated a Police Officer informed her that the relationship between the\nPolice and Fire Departments is the best in the 15 years he has been on the force; that\nshe has also heard the same comments from Fire Department personnel.\nCouncilmember Tam requested information on costs associated with water rescue\nrelated programs and equipment.\nThe Fire Chief stated a ten-year plan is estimated to cost approximately $400,000;\nadding a fire boat would increase the cost to approximately $1.2 million; hopefully, some\nof the costs could be offset with grant funding; a fire boat costs anywhere between\n$450,000 to $2.5 million.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Police Department's boat could be used, to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the negative.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department boat is 10 years old and is in good\ncondition; some grant money will be used to refurbish the hull; longevity has increased\nby storing the boat out of the water; a lot of the training costs are reimbursable;\nunfortunately, courses are not always offered on a regular basis.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated both departments have done excellent work together;\nthe relationship has improved.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the report is comprehensive; noted the Police and Fire\nDepartments have made 16 successful water rescues since the Crown Beach tragedy.\nThe Fire Chief stated awareness has been heightened after the tragedy; increased calls\nhave allowed the Fire Department to test capabilities and utilize its resources.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the review is excellent; that he is impressed with what\nhas occurred; the readiness level has been heightened.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether funding has been redirected from the current\nbudget to cover costs, to which the Fire Chief responded some equipment funding has\nbeen redirected.\nThe Police Chief stated that training and equipment funding has been reprioritized for\nthe Police Department.\nSpeaker: Carol Gottstein, Alameda, noted that Raymond Zach's name and the word\n\"suicide\" are not mentioned in the report.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Manager suggested that the next update be presented during budget\ndiscussions.\n(12-043) Recommendation to Approve the Fire Department's Implementation of a Pilot\nBasic Life Support Transportation Program.\nThe Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the proposed plan seems good for cost recovery and\nutilizing resources; inquired whether the proposed plan would be feasible considering\nrecent fire activity, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether 5150 calls fall under Basic Life Support (BLS), to\nwhich the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative when medical clearance is not\nneeded.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated a lot of requirements\nare necessary to ensure that Medicare and Medical are covered.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether staff has discussed the proposed plan with\nAlameda Hospital.\nThe Fire Chief responded efforts have been made to contact the hospital; stated\nAlameda Hospital is under contract with American Medical Response (AMR); noted the\nhospital is happy with AMR.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the BLS transportation program is a revenue\ngenerator for the hospital, to which the Fire Chief responded that he does not know;\nstated the program is a revenue generator for AMR.\nThe City Manager stated the issue is on his agenda when he meets with the [Hospital]\nChief Executive Officer next week.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember Johnson stated knowing whether the hospital relies on the revenue is\nimportant; inquired whether fire fighting personnel would be used.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated part-time Emergency Medical\nTechnicians (EMT's) would be used; stated South San Francisco has a good model;\nSouth San Francisco only hires people interested in a fire service career.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how the transportation service is working for South\nSan Francisco and Palo Alto.\nThe Fire Chief responded Palo Alto started the program seven days a week but the\nprogram has been reduced to five days per week; Palo Alto's program has been used\nas an overflow for AMR; South San Francisco has been more aggressive and has\ngenerated revenue.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated it is important for the public to know that fire-fighting\npersonnel would not be used for the pilot program.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he is excited about the program; the program would\nprovide an important service but would also generate revenue.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is a little critical about pubic/private ventures;\nnoted the previous telecom situation; inquired whether there would be competition with\nAMR.\nThe Fire Chief responded AMR no longer provides service in Alameda County.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there would be competition with the hospital; $60 million\nwas lost with the telecom venture; not having the upper hand is concerning.\nThe Fire Chief stated the plug could be pulled if the program is not successful.\nThe City Manager stated the City is more compelled to be entrepreneurial due to limited\nresources; the program would have cost benefits by freeing up the Advanced Life\nSupport (ALS) ambulance, and would provide on-site testing for potential recruits; the\nplug could be pulled if estimates turn out to be overly optimistic.\nMayor Gilmore inquired who would supervise the ambulance service, to which the Fire\nChief responded the EMS division.\nThe City Manager stated diversified service is a challenge that faces fire departments\ntoday.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would not compare the proposed program to\nthe telecom situation; competition would not be based on price; inquired whether the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 7, "text": "program would remain the same if successful.\nThe Fire Chief responded the next logical step would be to purchase a dedicated\nambulance if the program becomes successful.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Fire Department would not be entering a field where one\nplayer has a near monopoly.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not think paying $17 per hour is a good\nlabor model; the burden would increase if positions became full time.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1.\n(12-044) Recommendation to Remove One Ten-Inch Diameter Liquidambar and\nReplace with One 15-Gallon Japanese Maple, Appropriate $1,289,100 in Sewer Fund\nFees and Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,482,600, Including Contingency, to Fort\nBragg Electric, Inc. for the Dublin Sewer Pump Station Backup Generator Installation\nProject, No. P.W. 04-10-10.\nThe City Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether everyone understands the difference in the tree size, to\nwhich the City Engineer responded that she thinks so.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a Japanese Maple is a great improvement over a\nLiquidambar.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the life expectancy of a Liquidambar, to which\nthe City Engineer responded over 100 years.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that Harbor Bay Liquidambar trees do not look like the\nones on Gibbons Drive.\nSpeaker: Anne Vistola, Alameda, stated that she paid to have the trees planted ten\nyears ago; the trees improved the community space and masked the pump; that she\nhas no objection to Japanese Maples; size difference is a concern.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Vistola would prefer to have two\nJapanese Maples.\nMs. Vistola responded that she is fine with leaving the other Liquidambar because of its\nmaturity.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Liquidambars were planted for screening\nand noise, to which Ms. Vistola responded not for noise.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how tall is a 15-gallon Japanese Maple.\nThe City Engineer responded ten feet; stated the tree can grow to twenty-five feet at a\nrate of twelve inches per year; a young tree would soon catch up to a 24-inch box tree\nand would be healthier.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Ms. Vistola would be happier with a taller\ntree, to which Ms. Vistola responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated trees get bigger with age and become more difficult to transplant.\nCouncilmember Johnson suggested that Ms. Vistola work with staff in order to weigh\noptions.\nMs. Vistola stated that she appreciates the offer.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the staff recommendation with amendment to\ndirect staff to work with the homeowner on tree size.\nCouncilmember seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-045) Resolution No. 14654, \"Accepting the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority's Assignment of Its Rights, Assets, Obligations, Responsibilities, Duties and\nContracts, including the Economic Development Conveyance Agreement and Lease in\nFurtherance of Conveyance.\" Adopted.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated understanding that the issue is unchartered territory is\nimportant; the City is doing its best to preserve its options; many options have been\nconsidered; there is no magic answer at this point; the City is doing the best it can with\nwhat is known now.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff is pursing State legislation; the\nstaff recommendation is the best short-term solution in order to have the ability to do\nwhat needs to be done on a day-by-day basis.\nMayor Gilmore stated staff would continue to consider other vehicles for another\nsuccessor agency that is not the City.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated tonight's option could be an interim or permanent\nsituation; the City has no choice at this time.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 9, "text": "Speakers: Kurt Peterson, Alameda, encouraged Council to express concerns to the\nNavy regarding the Navy's proposed reduction in Restoration Advisory Board meetings;\nand Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, stated the City should not get itself into any further debt;\ncommunity members want to have input on the development of Alameda Point.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney stated the City would\nlook at lease revenue bonds that would not impact the General Fund; the City has\ninsurance on current leases; the pollution liability and policies in place protect the City;\nthe City is covered as well as possible; that she cannot say there would be no possibility\nthat the City would have some liability; the City will continue to look for other vehicles to\nadd protection; the risk is minimal.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Navy still retains the responsibility for clean up.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to have a follow up report on possible\nexposures to liabilities.\nThe City Attorney stated that she would be happy to provide a report; the largest liability\nwould be environmental; the City is very well covered; the Navy retains responsibility for\nthe clean up and the City has pollution liability insurance; developers would have\ninsurance; the City would use lease revenue bonds as a financing tool.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n(12-046) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Article Il (Boards and Commissions) of Chapter Il (Administration) to Reduce\nMembership on Various Commissions. Not Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation; noted a revision to the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated public engagement would be helpful; proposed that the\nsubcommittee make on an effort over the next four months to provide a proposal for\nBoard and Commission meetings and structure improvements; stated that he would\nvolunteer to be on the subcommittee.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that the Youth Commission provides an opportunity for\nhigh school students to be involved; that she would prefer to leave the Youth\nCommission at eleven members.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Youth Commission has had problems reaching a\nquorum.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Johnson stated perhaps the Youth Commission could be reduced to\nnine members; five members would constitute a quorum.\nThe City Manager stated two organizational questions are at stake; staff believes that\nthere are too many members and too many meetings; each individual meeting becomes\nless important by having too many members and too many meetings; people become\ndiscouraged from showing up when a quorum becomes an issue.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated reducing the number of meetings might solve the\nattendance issue.\nThe City Manager stated the issue has been addressed by Council for over a year; that\nhe does not object to waiting another six months if Council chooses; the matter needs to\nbe brought to closure.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he agrees that Council needs to move quickly and\nefficiently but also needs to move in the right way; a public engagement process is\nimportant; direction has been given to do a survey; public workshops have been\ndiscussed and should happen; a four-month extension is reasonable to ensure that\nthings are done correctly.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Youth Commission problems are two-year terms\nand reaching a quorum; that he thinks the Public Art Commission should be pushed\nback under the right area and the Film Commission should be put back under the\nEconomic Development Commission.\nCouncilmember Tam stated having Boards and Commissions is the City's way of\ndealing with public participation and engagement; that she would suggest folding the\nmatter into the public participation policy with appropriate workshops and provide the\ntime necessary to do things right in accordance with Vice Mayor Bonta's comments.\nThe City Manager stated as long as there are problems with quorums, Boards and\nCommissions cannot function in the important matter intended which is to provide\nadvice to Council; Boards and Commissions provide a very important function; staff is\nnot trying to limit participation but is trying to make participation effective.\nMayor Gilmore inquired when the public engagement policy would becoming to Council.\nThe Deputy City Manager responded meetings are scheduled for March 12th and March\n25th; stated staff would be coming back to Council in April.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that her preference would be to leave the Recreation\nand Park Commission at seven members because a full balance of perspectives is\nneeded; fixing frequency of meetings would help solve the quorum issue.\nMayor Gilmore stated the request [reducing membership to five] came from the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 11, "text": "Recreation and Park Commission Chair.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the request was made because the Recreation and\nPark Commission only had four members.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the Recreation and Park Commission has no\ndesignated seats.\nSpeakers: Jane Sullwold, Golf Commission, stated that she understands that the\nordinance was amended to recognize a quorum to be a majority of those who are\nappointed to the seats; that she does not want to have less Golf Commission meetings\nuntil Golf Course issues are resolved; and Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the value of\nthe Boards and Commissions need to be recognized.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she likes the idea of folding the issue into the public\nengagement process.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of folding the proposed changes into the public\noutreach process for development of the public participation policy.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that Vice Mayor Bonta work with the Deputy City Manager on\nthe issue.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated reviewing frequency of meetings is\nimportant.\nThe City Manager stated staff resources are a concern; making sure the system works\nis important.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated attendance needs to be documented.\nCouncilmember Tam volunteered to serve on the subcommittee with Vice Mayor Bonta.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-047) The City Manager made an announcement regarding the Budget Challenge\nand upcoming special marriage dates.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-048) Ken Peterson, Alameda, stated the budget should be easy to understand and\nhas not been; urged it be fixed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 12, "text": "(12-049) D. Tillman, Task Inc., urged the Council to continue to support the homeless,\nespecially Veterans.\n(12-050) Janet Gibson, Alameda, commented on the Crown Beach Tragedy follow up\nreport; suggested follow up include a City philosophy for people to be responsible, kind\ncitizens and development of a good Samaritan policy.\n(12-051) Lily Leung stated the Alameda Little Ice Rink should have remained longer and\ncould be located at Alameda Point.\nMayor Gilmore noted the ice rink was a joint effort including Perforce Software,\nAlameda Municipal Power, and Buestad Construction; stated the location is private\nproperty and it is too early to pin down a new location.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City would love to have an ice rink; a business\nwould have to determine whether it could generate revenue; the ice rink required a lot of\nsubsidy.\n(12-052) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, discussed the meeting times listed on agendas.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-053) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Social Service\nHuman Relations Board (SSHRB).\nMayor Gilmore nominated Michael Radding for appointment to the SSHRB.\n(12-054) Mayor Gilmore stated Councilmember deHaan would serve on the Airport\nNoise Forum since she cannot attend meetings.\n(12-055) Mayor Gilmore inquired about the status of the City Clerk contract.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she is waiting for information from the City\nAttorney's office.\n(12-056) Councilmember deHaan stated the country's handling of returning veterans\nhas been very commendable.\n(12-057) Vice Mayor Bonta stated the proposed third Measure B would be on the\nNovember ballot; said Measure is an extension and augmentation of the current half\ncent sales tax that funds Alameda County transportation projects and programs; the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 13, "text": "Alameda County Transportation Commission approved the proposed Transportation\nExpenditure Plan; that he voted in support of the project.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING\nTUESDAY - FEBRUARY 7, 2012- 5:50 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 5:58 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Board Members Bonta, deHaan,\nJohnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-030 CC) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; As Plaintiff (City\ninitiating legal action); Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: One.\n(12-010 ARRA) Conference with Real Property Negotiator (54956.8); Property:\nAlameda Point; Agency Negotiator:\nJennifer Ott, Alameda Point Chief Operating\nOfficer; Negotiating parties:\nARRA and East Bay Regional Park District; Under\nNegotiation: Price and Terms of Payment.\n(12-031 ( CC) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Holly\nBrock-Cohn, Human Resources Director, and Masa Shiohira, Contract Labor Negotiator\nEmployee Organizations: Alameda City Employee Association; International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation, Police Officers Association (Non Sworn); Anticipated Issues: All (Wages,\nHours, Benefits, and Working Conditions).\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor/Chair Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Anticipated Litigation, the matter was not heard; regarding\nReal Property, direction was given to staff; no action was taken; and regarding Labor,\ndirection was given to staff; no action was taken.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 6:50\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\n(NOTICED AS EITHER ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\n(ARRA) OR CITY COUNCIL MEETING; CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTED ASSIGNMENT\nOF ARRA'S RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AT THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING)\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 7, 2011 - -7:01 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 10:09 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*12-058) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting, the Regular ARRA Meeting, the\nSpecial Joint City Council and ARRA Meeting, and the Joint City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners Meeting of January 4, 2012. Approved.\n(*12-059) Recommendation to Approve Waiving the License Fee for St. Joseph\nElementary School's Use of Building 12 at Alameda Point. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n(12-060) Recommendation to Provide Direction to Staff to Implement Land Use\nAmendments for Alameda Point Consistent with the Navy's Anticipated Conveyance of\nAlameda Point Property and the Goals Stated in the Recent Community Process.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:12 p.m. and returned at 10:15 p.m.\n*\nSpeakers: William Smith, Renewed HOPE, expressed his support of the staff\nrecommendation and questioned the role of the Housing Element; and Ken Peterson,\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 16, "text": "Alameda, questioned the impacts of developing housing at Alameda Point.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated staff is working with the Planning Board on\nCitywide Housing Element amendments; staff is looking at the Citywide land supply for\nthe City's regional housing needs determination; Alameda Point would not be used for\nthis round of the Housing Element, but would be used for the next round; staff would be\ncoordinating rezoning efforts with the Housing Element discussion starting on March\n12th\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the City has a fiscal neutrality\npolicy, which requires no adverse impacts on the City's General Fund.\nThe City Manager stated base development would have to be much more oriented to\njobs and economic development rather than residential development.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of having staff proceed as recommended.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(12-061) Presentation on Proposed Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda\nPoint.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether staff would anticipate going out with a bond based\nupon current lease revenue or whether the City would enter into more leases to\nincrease revenue, to which the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded\ncurrent leases.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether revenue would pay for maintenance also, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point continued the presentation.\nThe City Manager stated staff would like to have Council's nod to go forward with further\ndevelopment of Option 4; having the land already entitled would provide the maximum\nland value when the City presents the land to a developer; the con to Option 4 would be\nsubstantial upfront costs; two groups would be affected by continuing to go down the\ntraditional route; one being a community that would have conflicting desires regarding\nhousing versus commercial versus retail; the other being a developer who would make\na proposal based on an anticipated set of entitlements that would meet investment\nneeds; the City would end up as both the regulator for land use purposes and the\nmediator; the City might as well be involved directly in calibrating issues; $4 million to $5\nmillion would be spent in staff time negotiating with a developer; Option 4 would allow\nthe City to make the maximum amount on the sale of the land while holding onto the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 17, "text": "maximum amount of control.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has concerns regarding the concept of a development\nadvisor; the possibility of conflicts of interest are massive; that she would need a lot of\ncertainty on how waters would be navigated before going forward; cost would be\nanother concern; the City has very competent staff working on Alameda Point; that she\nwould not like to see an overlap between development advisor skill sets and staff skill\nsets; the development advisor's role would need to be clearly defined.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated staff would be working very closely\nwith the City Attorney's office regarding the conflict of interest issue; staff would ensure\nthat the developer advisor's role is clearly defined.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned about parceling off portions of the base;\neventually everything would come together as a whole and systems would need to work\nthroughout the entire base when hooked up.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of having staff progress with Option 4; stated\na master developer approach has not worked so far and would not work now.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not feel it is appropriate to rush through\nmaking a decision on the issue especially coming on the heels of absorbing a lot of\nliabilities with no financial tools.\n* *\n(12-062) Mayor Gilmore moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m. in\norder to accommodate the speakers.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nSpeakers: William Smith, stated housing would bring in business and is an important\nfactor; Karen Bey, Alameda, stated that she prefers Option 1; former Councilmember\nTony Daysog, Alameda, encouraged community input regarding uses of the southern\nportion; Lisa Sweet encouraged selecting a developer that would not overlay skill sets;\nand Carol Gottstein, Alameda, encouraged Council to move forward with Option 4.\n*\nVice Mayor Bonta left the dias at 11:05 p.m. and returned to the dais at 11:06 p.m.\n*\nMayor Gilmore inquired when Council would have the opportunity to discuss the matter\nsince no action is being taken tonight.\nThe City Manager responded March 20th; stated staff would do additional research on\nconcerns outlined tonight.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-07", "page": 18, "text": "ORAL REPORT\n(12-063) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nRepresentative. None given.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:17 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 7, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-07.pdf"}