{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - MARCH 20, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 4.\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(12-117) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution amending the Alameda City\nEmployees Association Salary Schedule [paragraph no. 12-127 was continued to April\n3, 2012.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-118) Proclamation Declaring March through May 2012 as Historic Preservation\nSeason.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Historical Advisory Board\nMember Judith Lynch.\nMs. Lynch thanked the Council and submitted information.\n(12-119) Presentation by Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) on the\nAlameda County Final 2012 Transportation Expenditure Plan. (TEP)\nThe Public Works Director noted that on the Consent Calendar, there is a related\nresolution approving the 2012 ACTC Expenditure Plan [paragraph number 12-126].\nACTC Executive Director, Art Dao, submitted information and ACTC Deputy Director,\nTess Lengyel, gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how many public meetings were held in Alameda.\nMs. Lengvel responded public meetings were not held in Alameda; stated meetings\nwere held in each of the five County Board of Supervisor districts.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Broadway/Jackson project has been vetted\nthrough the [Planning] Board and [Transportation] Commission.\nMr. Dao responded said project has many possible solutions; both Oakland and\nAlameda will be engaged in the process.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 2, "text": "The Public Works Director stated both cities and ACTC have been engaged in public\noutreach regarding the project; the project is not set in stone.\nMr. Dao stated the project started in 1997; ACTC has worked very closely with the\nOakland Chinatown Advisory Committee.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether projects identified in Table 2 of the staff report\nwere the result of a recommendation from the Transportation Commission in January, to\nwhich the Public Works Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she understands the benefits Alameda would derive\nfrom the Measure; inquired what would be the absolute last date that Council could\nrequest the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to place the TEP on the November,\n2012 ballot, to which Ms. Lengvel responded the ACTC is trying to get endorsements by\nMay 22.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Measure B has been extremely important to Alameda;\ninquired when the original tax would terminate.\nMs. Lengvel responded the plan presented tonight is the third TEP in Alameda County;\nstated in 1986, Alameda County took the opportunity of legislation that had been\npassed to approve a transportation sales tax measure for a fifteen year period which\nexpired in 2002; in November 2000, voters were asked to approve a second TEP for a\ntwenty year plan; the second TEP required a two-thirds voter approval; the twenty year\nplan has been delivered in terms of capital investments in a ten year period; the early\ninvestments will need to be paid off with the remaining ten years worth of funds; federal\nand State funds are not available now; the measure requires that voters approve plan\nbut voters would not have to approve the tax every time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether AC Transit or BART are anticipating any tax\nmeasure in November, to which Ms. Lengvel responded that she does not know of any\ndefinitive action for placing anything on the ballot.\nSpeaker: Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated the 1880/Broadway/Jackson project did not\ncome from a public input driven process.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-120) Al Wright discussed parking violations on Park Street.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the resolution approving the 2012 ACTC Expenditure\nPlan [paragraph number 12-126 was removed from the Consent Calendar for\ndiscussion and the resolution amending the Alameda City Employees Association\nSalary Schedule [paragraph no. 12-127 was continued to April 3, 2012.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 3, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nMayor Gilmore noted that she would abstain from voting on the Minutes. The motion on\nthe remainder of the Consent Calendar carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.] [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n(*12-121) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on February\n21, 2012; and the Special City Council Meeting Held on February 23, 2012. Approved.\nNote: Mayor Gilmore abstained from voting on the minutes.\n(*12-122) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,659,565.86.\n(*12-123) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $112,400, Including\nContingencies, to Waterworks Engineering for the Preparation of Engineering\nDocuments for the Abandonment and Relocation of Existing Sanitary Sewer Main Along\nLagoon Seawall and Sewer Line Along Clinton Avenue, No. P.W. 01-12-03.\n(*12-124) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize Call for\nBids for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 31, No. P.W. 02-12-04.\n(*12-125) Resolution No. 14661, \"Approving a Ten-Year Master Programs Funding\nAgreement with the Alameda County Transportation Commission for Distribution and\nReceipt of Current Measure B Transportation Sales Tax Revenues and New Vehicle\nRegistration Fee Revenues.\" Adopted.\n(*12-126) Adoption of Resolution Approving the 2012 Alameda County Transportation\nExpenditure Plan and Request the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Place It on\nthe November 6, 2012 Ballot. Not adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would feel more comfortable if the item was moved\nto the May 15th Council meeting so that Council would have the benefit of the May 14th\nPlanning Board meeting and public process for looking at the Broadway/Jackson\nproject.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff has tentatively scheduled the May 28th Planning\nBoard Meeting for the Broadway/Jackson project; removing the Broadway/Jackson from\nthe TEP is not possible.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not suggesting that the Broadway/Jackson\nproject be removed; she would like to have some input from the Planning Board and\nTransportation Commission; that she understands that the Planning Board would\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 4, "text": "address the Broadway/Jackson project separately.\nThe Public Works Director stated that all stops would be pulled to place the matter the\nfirst Planning Board Meeting in May.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he understands that the full flesh and bones of the\nBroadway/Jackson project are yet to be decided; concurred with Councilmember Tam\nthat it is important to get input from the Planning Board and Transportation Commission.\nThe Public Works Director stated the staff suggestion is to have the TEP approved\ntonight while knowing that there will be a lot of public input and there is no consensus\namong all stakeholders at this point.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not fixated on the Broadway/Jackson project and\ntrying to get consensus with Oakland Chinatown; her concern is with asking citizens to\nvote on the proposed tax in perpetuity; that she would like to have further discussion on\nthe matter beyond tonight.\nIn response to the Assistant City Manager's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated\nthe Broadway/Jackson project is scheduled for the second [Planning Board] meeting in\nMay; reiterated that staff would try to place the matter on the first Planning Board\nmeeting in May.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff reports for the May 15th Council meeting would\nhave already gone out before the Planning Board meets; the staff report would not\ncontain any comments from the Planning Board meeting.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Planning Board is scheduled to only address the\nBroadway/Jackson project, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the Transportation Commission is scheduled to\nreview the Broadway/Jackson project.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer responded the Transportation Commission held a\nmeeting last year on the TEP; stated the Transportation Commission was requested to\nprovide priorities; the Broadway/Jackson project has been discussed in the past on\nmany occasions.\nThe Public Works Director inquired whether there is time to have a Broadway/Jackson\npresentation before the first Planning Board meeting in May, to which the Supervising\nCivil Engineer responded a presentation could be done in April.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether another meeting would be warranted.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council would be asking citizens to vote on the matter without\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 5, "text": "being educated if Council approves the staff recommendation.\nUrged support of Councilmember Tam's suggestion: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Bill\nSmith, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Tam moved that the item be put on the May 15th City Council meeting\nafter the TEP is addressed at Planning Board and Transportation Commission\nmeetings.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta stated the process is important; public education\nand input is a critical component of the measure.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.]\n(12-127) Adoption of Resolution Amending the Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of Recreation Services\nSpecialist. Not adopted. Continued to April 3, 2012.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-128) Resolution No. 14662, \"Determining that the City Council Shall No Longer\nServe as the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda;\nand\n(12-128A) Resolution No. 14663, \"Approving the Mayor's Selection of Members to the\nBoard of Commissioners of the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda.' Adopted.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore stated the staff report notes that specific Board Members may be\nremoved by the Mayor with cause; inquired where cause is defined, to which the\nHousing Authority Executive Director responded possibly in the Health and Safety\nCode; stated that he would provide the definition.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she would also like to know whether the Mayor would be\nbound by definition and could not be more specific.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Housing Authority Executive\nDirector stated the defined benefit package would be through PERS and is similar to the\ncurrent PERS plan the City has which is 2% at 55 for miscellaneous employees; in the\nearly 1980's, the Housing Authority had the choice of being under social security or not;\nthere is no backing out of the contract with social security; Housing Authority employees\nand the Housing Authority would pay into social security.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated the Housing Authority would be putting money into the\ndefined benefits and social security; inquired why the City would pay into two pensions\nand not ask employees to pay into social security entirely.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director stated employers pay one portion and\nemployees pay another portion of social security.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated it would appear to be a very generous retirement\npackage.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director stated in the early 1980's, Congress imposed\nthe windfall elimination provision, which reduces social security based upon quarterly\nearnings numbers.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Housing Authority would continue to\ncontract for the community-policing program.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative; stated the\nHousing Authority would contract with an Emeryville firm for human relations services;\nthe City will lose approximately $64,000 annually from the General Fund.\nRequested that the Housing Authority recognize Operaing Engineers [OE Local 3 as\nits\nbargaining unit and roll over the current Memorandum of Understanding [MOU] for at\nleast one year: Dave Gossman, ACEA/OE Local 3.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether OE Local 3 is the bargaining representative for\nAlameda City Employees Association (ACEA), to which Mr. Gossman responded in the\naffirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry, Mr. Gossman stated OE Local 3 requests that\nthe current contract roll over to the Housing Authority.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what stipulations could be accommodated based on Mr.\nGossman's request.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded ACEA employees are not Housing\nAuthority employees yet; stated Mr. Gossman is asking that the current ACEA contract\nbe rolled over for Housing Authority employees if they become OE3 employees; that he\nis not aware that members have voted; benefits would be similar; benefits have been\nexplained to OE Local 3 employees.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the City Attorney responded that the\nHousing Commission would have the authority to negotiate with its employees as to\nwhat type of union or bargaining unit they would belong to or none at all; stated Council\nwould not have the prerogative to do so.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether separation could be made contingent on terms.\nThe City Attorney responded that she does not know what authority could be used;\nstated the Housing Authority has a structure within State law.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the Housing Authority Executive Director\nstated the Housing Authority has an employer/employee relations resolution which was\nadopted around 1991-1993 by the Council; the resolution describes the process\nregulated by the Meyer-Milias Brown Act regarding how employees go about getting\norganized to become a union; a draft personnel policy has been presented to the\nemployees which explains the working conditions which are very similar to the ACEA\nand MCEA contract currently in place; no one is talking about union busting.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the intent is to transgress from one union to\nanother, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated Council cannot put any conditions on a new entity; it is important\nto be specific in letting employees know the change of status and what needs to be\ndone.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated that he\nhas advised employees that once they leave City employment they would be\nunrepresented but there is a process that needs to be followed in order to be\nrepresented by a union.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what type of guidelines and procedures would govern\nlabor management during said period of time.\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director responded a personnel policy would be\nadopted by the new Board of Commissioners that has provisions, which are very similar\nto provisions in the ACEA and MCEA MOU.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the personnel policy would be the placeholder until\nunions are organized, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVive Mayor Bonta inquired whether steps would be taken to negotiate a contract at that\ntime, to which the Housing Authority Executive Director responded in the affirmative.\nSpoke in support of the autonomous move: Judge C. Richard Bartalini, Alameda.\nFollowing Judge Bartalini's comments, Councilmember Tam inquired whether there\nwould be options to have employees remain City employees until the formation of a\nunion [through the Housing Authority], to which the City Manager responded in the\nnegative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 8, "text": "The City Attorney stated employees have the empowerment to decide what bargaining\nunit they want to represent them and form labor unions with a new entity; it is not up to\nthe employer.\nCouncilmember Tam stated there would be an effective date when the Housing\nAuthority would become autonomous; it is important to provide employees with\nassurances until they decide on their own how to organize.\nThe City Manager stated Mr. Gossman stated there has already been a vote; now it is\njust a matter of going through formalities; formalities would need to be accepted by the\nnew independent body.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's previous inquiry, the Attorney stated California Health\nand Safety Code Section 34282 defines \"cause\" as \"any inefficiency, neglect of duty, or\nmisconduct in office, a commissioner may be removed\"; a commissioner would need to\nbe notified of such action ten days prior to the hearing.\nMayor Gilmore stated the terms \"inefficiency, neglect of duty, or misconduct in office\"\nare not very clear.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Housing Authority Executive\nDirector stated the Mayor would select the new members of the Board of\nCommissioners and the Council would approve the appointment.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved adoption of the resolutions.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n-\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office to the Board of Commissioners.\n(12-129) Recommendation to Provide Direction on the Proposed Disposition and\nDevelopment Strategy for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated only 3.2% of lease revenues would be bonded and a\npositive fund would still be generated for the reserves; inquired why staff could not just\nuse lease revenues to fund planning; further inquired why staff could not use lease\nrevenue bonds as seed money for capital improvements instead of planning.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded coming up with $5 million over\nthe next two years would be a much harder task and would diminish the fund balance.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is not convinced that $5 million needs to be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 9, "text": "identified up front for planning; decision points and timelines are needed.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated funds could be used for something\nelse if Council decides to go in a different direction; there is flexibility.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is suggesting using lease revenues and not going\nin debt.\nThe City Manager stated the annual debt service payment would be $400,000 per year;\ncash flow would be strapped and reserves would need to be used to come up with $5\nmillion over the next 24 months.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City would be in the market to look for someone to build out\nAlameda Point; developers are in the business of making a profit; the project has to be\nentitled in such a way that the profit would justify the risk that a developer would take;\nthe City will not get any takers if the profit does not justify the risk; financial feasibility\nneeds to be broken down; any developer looking for financing would need to do their\nown due diligence; questioned whether 1,425 homes pencil out to be financially\nfeasible; stated building residential first would generate more value for the rest of the\nproperty; everything needs to be penciled out; a developer will promise anything to get a\nfoot in the door, a developer could tie up the land based upon what the City wants to\nbuild, and then find things that need changed; the community would look at the situation\nas another developer that came in and did a bait and switch.\nThe City Manager stated the City would be subject to a bait and switch even more so\nwithout entitlements; a blank slate would be given and a developer would have control\nof the land; the City would be the development partner, regulator, and mediator between\ncommunity interest versus the very real and unalterable pressure on the developer to\nmeet a return on investment that would satisfy shareholders; the bait and switch\nproblem exists any way the City goes; the way to control and mitigate the matter would\nbe by controlling entitlements up front before selecting a developer.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she needs to wrap her head around a financing plan and\nunderwriting plan; inquired at what point would the City get a sense of the numbers;\nsuggested running several financial models in order to know what is feasible; stated the\nCity has looked at the northern area as a place to put houses; a development advisor\nmight suggest putting houses in a different area with better views to get more bang for\nthe buck.\nThe City Manager stated staff would be looking for said answers from a development\nadvisor; staff is trying to figure out a way to get all the benefits of a development team in\nterms of market knowledge without having profit motives.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether it would be possible to run financial models based\nupon information collected over the last ten years before shelling out money for the\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) and other things.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 10, "text": "The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded that her first concern has\nalways been how to get feasible development going, stated 1,425 homes is the number\nfor the foreseeable future; the entitlement process would answer questions.\nThe City Manager stated numbers would need to be updated with some type of\nintellectual integrity looking forward when products actually get to market.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated the key to financial feasibility is\nphasing and knowing how much money is needed to seed the project.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how a smaller subset could pencil out if the project as a whole\ndoes not pencil out.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the project is a 20-30 year\nproject; stated getting something started is important; 1,425 houses would take five\nyears to develop; entitlements might need to be changed in eight to ten years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the intention has never been to tie up massive pieces of\nproperty; the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) process provided a great\ndeal of information; moving quickly is important.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she does not disagree that a good strategy is needed\nto start quickly; the sum of the parts have to add up to the whole.\nMayor Gilmore stated one of her biggest concerns is piecemealing infrastructure;\ninfrastructure can be phased but needs to be planned as a whole to figure out how\neverything will connect; that she needs to understand what the costs are and whether or\nnot the project would play out in the financial market; she wants to know high end and\nlow end costs.\nThe City Manager stated Mayor Gilmore is asking for what staff is proposing to do; staff\nwould like to conduct the analysis with private sector help; entitlements would come to\nthe Planning Board and Council and questions could be raised.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she is hearing a lot of emphasis on entitlements and less\nemphasis on the analysis and numbers.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Public Works Director identified $200 million worth of\ninfrastructure when working with the prior master developer; the Mayor is asking what\nthe overall project would look like to get $200 million work of infrastructure.\nThe Public Works Director stated teeth have been cut on the Bayport project; the first\nstep is to develop a master infrastructure plan for backbone infrastructure; then, larger\nparcels would be broken down into smaller parcels; staff would hiring an outside\nconsultant with lots of Base experience.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 11, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to have a road map.\nThe City Manager suggested that Council accept the strategy and direct staff to come\nback at the second Council meeting in April meeting with a critical path.\nMayor Gilmore requested that the critical path include the cost of each piece.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the May 2nd Council meeting might be a better date\nbecause the second Council meeting in April is already full.\nCouncilmember Tam suggested coming back to Council with a Request for Proposals\nshaped based upon timelines and decision and cost points.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated in the past, lease activity information was provided on a\nquarterly basis.\nThe City Manager stated lease information would be provided on May 2nd. .\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point\nresponded the land use options are overly simplified and would be based upon the\nzoning amendment and ultimate entitlement plan; the land use options would parallel\nthe Planning Board efforts and allow input from Council and the public.\n(12-130) Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of considering additional items past 10:30\np.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\nVice Mayor Bonta left the dais at 10:16 p.m. and returned at 10:18 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam let the dais at 10:20 p.m. and returned at 10:22 p.m. Vice Mayor\nBonta left the dais and returned at 10:22 p.m.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation:\nDiane Lichtenstein, Housing\nOpportunities Make Economic Sense, Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative.\nQuestioned the need for an EIR and where money would come from for infrastructure:\nJon Spangler, Alameda.\nProposed taking advantage of flexibility with new land use plans: Bill Smith, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 12, "text": "Expressed concern with whether project revenues would cover infrastructure cots and\ncommunity benefits: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nSuggested spending the $5 million on marketing the land in the southern area: Nancy\nHird, Alameda Citizens Task Force.\nDiscussed South Shore Shopping Center and Marina Village vacancies: Gretchen\nLipow, Alameda.\n(12-131) Review the Closed Session Minutes Approval Process.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether changes would be circulated to Council.\nThe City Clerk stated the change would be made and kept as part of the record.\nMayor Gilmore requested changes be circulated a second time to Council for review.\nThe City Clerk responded the revised final minutes could be circulated.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired who would document a closed session if an item is\nintended for Council discussion only.\nThe City Clerk responded the only exemption in the Sunshine Ordinance is for Public\nEmployee Performance Evaluation; otherwise, the City Clerk or designee would be in a\nclosed session.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation with an amendment\nto have the final set of minutes circulated if any changes are made.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-132) Lola Brown discussed the Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of\nRecreation Services Specialist [paragraph no. 12-127].\n.\n(12-133) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the East Bay Regional Park District proposal\nfor Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 13, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\n(12-134) Reconsider the City Council's February 21, 2012 Decision to Reduce the\nExpenditure of Approximately $12,000 in Measure B Funds Intended to Increase the\nSize of 12 Trees from 24-Inch to 36-Inch Box, as Part of the First Amendment to the\nContract with Suarez & Munoz, Inc. for the Park Street Streetscape Project, No. P.W.\n10-09-30.\nCouncilmember Tam made a brief presentation.\nThe Public Works Director stated the contractor and landscape architect have advised\nstaff that the proposed 36-inch box trees from Oregon have been infected with an\ninsect; they do not believe the trees are healthy and questioned whether the trees would\npass State inspection; the contractor and landscape architect have concerns with the\nhealth and structure of California trees; they feel the 24-inch box trees are healthier,\nbetter structured, and would perform better on Park Street; that he has asked the\ncontractor and landscape architect to continue to look for healthy 36-inch box trees;\nrequested that Council give staff the green light to continue to look for healthy 36-inch\nbox trees, but if none are found structured 24-inch box trees would be used.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the only two sources are California and Oregon.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he has asked the contractor and landscape\narchitect to look for other sources; stated the problem is the planting period is close to\nan end.\nSpoke in opposition of 36-inch box trees: Al Wright, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nSpoke in support of large trees: Lars Hanson, Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA); Barbara Mooney, Alameda, and Kate Pryor, Alameda.\nDiscussed patrons disappointment of tree removal: Nick Petrolakis.\n(12-135) Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\n*\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of restoring the $12,000 in Measure B funds to\ngive Public Works flexibility to use 36-inch trees.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\n[Absent: Councilmember Johnson - 1.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 14, "text": "The City Manager stated that the Council's vote on February 21st not to spend $12,000\nfor larger trees was highly influenced by being told that the Park Street Business\nAssociation recommended smaller trees.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-136) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB)\nRepresentative, on Highlights of March 1, 2012 Alameda Point RAB Meeting.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he did not have a report.\n(12-137) Mayor Gilmore inquired about the status of the City Clerk's contract.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded a closed session would be scheduled.\n(12-138) Councilmember deHaan submitted information on the proposed Measure C.\n(12-139) Vice Mayor Bonta announced there would be a meeting regarding public\nparticipation on March 24th at the Boys and Girls Club.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:05 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\n14\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - MARCH 20, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:06 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Tam and Mayor Gilmore -\n4.\n[Note: Councilmember Bonta arrived at 6:15 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nCouncilmember Johnson - 1.\nPublic Comment\nUrged having Council approve the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) proposal to\ncreate a wildlife refuge: Leora Feeney, Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge/Audubon\nSociety (submitted handout); Richard Bangert; Michael Lynes, Golden Gate Audubon\nSociety; Donald Dvorak, Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge; Pat Gammon, Friends of\nAlameda Wildlife Refuge; and Joyce Larrick, Friends of Alameda Wildlife Refuge.\nDiscussed the need to reserve land for the youth: Ron Matthews, Alameda.\nExpressed concern with the proposed deal with EBRPD to lease 150 acres of potential\nparkland for $1 per year; Peter Holmes, Alameda.\nSpoke about community involvement with the Alameda Futsal Club: Ed Owens,\nAlameda Futsal Club.\nProvided background on Measure WW money: Pat Bail, Alameda.\nObjected to EBRPD's actions: Griff Neal, Alameda Attack Lacrosse.\nDiscussed the need for development to help fund community benefits: Karen Bey,\nAlameda.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-115) Conference with Real Property Negotiator (54956.8); Property: Alameda Point\nAgency Negotiator: Jennifer Ott, Alameda Point COO; Negotiating parties: City of\nAlameda and East Bay Regional Park District; Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of\nPayment.\n(12-116) Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nSCC Alameda Point, LLC, et al V. City of Alameda, et al. U.S. District Court Case No.\nCV-10-5178.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-03-20", "page": 16, "text": "Following the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Existing Litigation, Council discussed strategy and gave\ndirection to staff on how to proceed.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess to hold the regular Council meeting at 7:22 p.m. and\nreconvened the closed session at 11:11p.m.\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Real Property, Council discussed strategy and gave direction\nto staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the special meeting at 11:31\np.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\n2\nMarch 20, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-03-20.pdf"}