{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY 15, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:25 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(12-226) Proclamation Declaring May 11 through May 20, 2012 as Affordable Housing\nWeek.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nCollaborative.\nMr. Biggs submitted information to the Council.\n(12-227) Proclamation Declaring May 22, 2012 as Harvey Milk Day.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Encinal High Gay/Straight\nAlliance members: Tina Burgdorf, Kimberly Walter, Sarah Russel, Emma Finn,\nMadeline Rose Searle-Bray, Lara Nassar, Wayne Ng, and Brigette Lundy-Paine; and\nAlameda High Gay/Straight Alliance members: Caitlin Gleason and Emilie Nachtigall.\n(12-228) Proclamation Declaring the Week of May 19-25, 2012 as National Safe\nBoating Week.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Coast Guard representatives\nPerry E. Joiner, Public Affairs Officer, and Vice Flotilla Commander Chester Bartellini.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone,\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the Emergency Police Tow Contract [paragraph no. 12-\n231 and the Second Amendment to Contract with Clean Lakes, Inc. [paragraph no. 12-\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 2, "text": "234\nwere removed from the Consent Calendar for 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(*12-229) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on April 17,\n2012. Approved.\n(*12-230) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,355,777.28.\n(12-231) Recommendation to Award Emergency Police Tow Contract to Ken Betts\nTowing Service.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry regarding the tow company's location, the\nPolice Sergeant stated San Leandro Street in Oakland.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired about the length of the contract, to which the Police\nSergeant responded the contract is for five years.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if the contract is the fourth five-year contract, to which the\nPolice Sergeant responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if any minimum requirements were set forth by the Request\nfor Proposals (RFP) regarding subcontracting.\nThe Police Sergeant responded companies are not allowed to subcontract work.\nThe Police Chief stated subcontracting was a bone of contention; Ken Betts has never\nhad to subcontract the towing service and has the equipment available to tow vehicles\nup to 60,000 pounds which could be motor homes, big rigs and AC transit busses;\nhowever, AC transit would tow their own vehicles; the police department is responsible\nfor handling something that Ken Betts Towing Service cannot tow.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether those types of vehicles have been towed in the past\n15 years Ken Betts has had the contract, to which the Police Chief responded in the\nnegative; stated the City does not have that type of vehicle here.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what were the main concerns about the other two\ncompanies.\nThe Police Sergeant responded San Leandro Tow's secondary location would be where\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 3, "text": "most of the business would take place; stated the location is 7.4 miles away, which is a\nlittle bit too far; staff did not want to make it inconvenient by sending people further\naway [to pick up towed vehicles]; Ted and Joes did not pass on the site visit.\nThe Police Chief stated security is a big concern; sometimes vehicles have to be\nsecured for evidentiary reasons; Ken Betts met the requirements; best customer service\nand distance are a big concern; having a vehicle towed is painful enough, staff does not\nwant somebody to have to go seven miles to get their vehicle back.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether San Leandro Tow's site 1.6 miles away is not as\nsecure as staff would like.\nThe Police Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the site was a little bit cluttered\nand disorganized; the location a little over seven miles was certainty better, but is seven\nmiles away.\nCouncilmember Tam stated San Leandro Tow had the highest bid of $425 for the\ncomplicated heavy equipment tows; inquired why the range is so different from Ken\nBetts at $199.\nThe Police Chief stated that he does not know how San Leandro Tow came up with the\nfee.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted San Leandro Tow's prices across the board were at\nthe top or tied for the top.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how much is spent annually on towing.\nThe Police Sergeant responded nothing comes out of the General Fund; fees are paid\nby owners of the towed vehicle.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the contract includes the City's use of tow\nservice, to which the Police Sergeant responded the use is only for emergencies.\nRequested an investigation of her legally parked vehicle that was towed from her\ndriveway: Dr. Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nFollowing Ms. Gottstein's comments, the Police Chief stated the vehicle was towed\nusing A&B Towing, the tow company for abandoned vehicles; that he would discuss the\nmatter with Ms. Gottstein, if needed.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 4, "text": "(*12-232) Recommendation to Appropriate $850,000 in Measure B Funds, $150,000 in\nConstruction Improvement Tax Funds, $20,000 in Marina Cove Assessment District\nFunds, and Award a Contract in the Amount of $2,177,800, Including Contingencies, to\nMCK Services, Inc. for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 31, No. P.W.\n01-12-04. Accepted,\n(*12-233) Recommendation to Appropriate $10,000 in Transportation Systems\nManagement/Transportation Demand Management Funds and Award a contract in the\nAmount of $200,000, Including Contingencies, to transMetro, Inc. for the Estuary\nCrossing Shuttle Service to Continue Operations. Accepted.\n(12-234) Recommendation to Appropriate $10,000 and Execute a Second Amendment\nto Contract with Clean Lakes, Inc. for Vegetation Management, Debris Management,\nand Water Quality Monitoring for South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 07-10-19.\nCouncilmember Tam recused herself and left the dais.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 4. [Absent: Councilmember Tam - 1.]\n(*12-235) Recommendation to Accept Staff's Responses to the Regional Sustainable\nCommunities Strategy - Jobs Housing Connection Scenario. Accepted.\n(*12-236) Resolution No. 14674, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment\non the Park Street Business Association Business Improvement Area of the City of\nAlameda for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and Set a Public Hearing for June 5, 2012 to Levy\nan Annual Assessment on the Park Street Business Association Business Improvement\nArea.\" Adopted.\n(*12-237) Resolution No. 14675, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy an Annual Assessment\non the West Alameda Business Association Business Improvement Area of the City of\nAlameda for Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and Set a Public Hearing for June 5, 2012 to Levy\nan Annual Assessment on the West Alameda Business Association Business\nImprovement Area.' Adopted.\n(*12-238) Resolution No. 14676, \"Resolution in Opposition to AB 391 (Pan), a Bill\nRelated to Electronic Reporting for Secondhand Dealers and Pawnbrokers.\" Adopted.\n(*12-239) Ordinance No. 3045, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Pacific\nShops, Inc. for an Initial Term of 25 Years with a 41 Year Option for the Tidelands\nProperty Located along Clement Street between Alameda Marina Drive and Willow\nStreet, Generally Known as Alameda Marina.\" Finally passed.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 5, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-240) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda\nMunicipal Code to Revise the Regulations Governing the Location of Massage\nTherapists and Associated Uses Including Tattoo in the Community Commercial\nDistrict. Introduced.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the ordinance would allow a massage establishment\nwith a use permit to go into business on Webster Street without being part of another\nestablishment, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether massage establishments which are part of another\nbusiness are allowed.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative; stated there is a 2% rule\nif the other business is allowed by right; for example, a nail salon permitted by right with\nno more than 2% of the total floor area devoted to massage is considered an accessory\nuse and massage is allowed by right.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether massage is allowed on the ground floor on Park\nStreet currently, to which the Planning Services Manager responded in the negative;\nstated an application for free standing massage on Park Street initiated the ordinance\namendment.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's comments regarding a business on Park Street,\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the accessory distinction was false, which is why the\nchange makes sense.\nUrged allowing tattoo parlors on ground floors: Jake Thompson, Inkies Tattoo Studio.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired about accessibility for second floor tattoo establishments.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated elevators are a possibility; tattoo establishments\nwere prohibited before; the business associations want to proceed slowly and carefully;\nWebster Street is asking that the regulation be similar to Park Street.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated massage therapists are allowed with a use permit on\nthe first floor and are allowed outright on the second floor; tattoo establishments are not\npermitted on the first floor but are permitted on the second floor.\nMayor Gilmore stated business have some idea about cliental and pick space based on\nneed; businesses serving physically disabled people would want to locate in buildings\nwith elevators.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether there is a mechanism to control the number\nof [similar] businesses.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the issue of quotas is not something that\nstaff wants to review.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Planning Services Manager stated\nthe ordinance would limit the number of applications and possibilities for tattoo parlors\non Webster Street; noted in one year, two applications for tattoo parlors have been\nreceived on Webster Street and one was approved.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated businesses clustering together becomes concerning.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved introduction of the ordinance pertaining to massage.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, in response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Planning\nServices Manager stated massage on the ground floor requires a certain amount of\neither retail or other activity at the front of the business as a condition of approval.\nExpressed that the West Alameda Business Association (WABA) wants the regulations\nsimilar to Park Street to require tattoo parlors on the second floor: Carolyn Lantz,\nWABA.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Gilmore stated the proposal for tattoo parlors would make the regulations on both\nPark and Webster Streets the same, prohibit tattoo parlors on the ground floor, and\nallow tattoo parlor upstairs.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance pertaining to tattoo.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the Park Street Business\nAssociation (PSBA) thinks not allowing tattoo parlors on the first floor is working well.\nRob Ratto, PSBA, responded the current ordinance is working just fine and he has not\nreceived one complaint since the ordinance went into effect over one year ago.\nCouncilmember Tam noted not allowing tattoo parlors on the first floor on Park Street\nmight have caused applications on Webster Street.\n***\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 8:22 p.m. and returned at 8:25 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 7, "text": "On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:25 p.m. and returned at 8:26 p.m.\n* (12-241) Resolution No. 14677, \"Approving the 2012 Alameda County Transportation\nExpenditure Plan (TEP) and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors\nPlace It on the November 6, 2012 Ballot.' Adopted.\nThe Supervising Civil Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the number of other cities on board.\nArt Dao, Alameda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) Executive Director,\nresponded 12 cities in the County approved the Countywide 2012 TEP, as well as AC\nTransit, BART and the Board of Supervisors.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired how many cities are left.\nMr. Dao responded two cities are left, Alameda and Berkeley.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, Mr. Dao stated ACTC will approve the final\nTEP on May 26th and ask the Board of Supervisors to put the TEP on the ballot for the\nNovember 2012 election.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested Mr. Dao give a quick synopsis.\nMr. Dao stated ACTC is asking the City to approve the TEP, which would provide $7.8\nbillion dollars of transportation infrastructure improvements over the next three decades.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the funding mechanism, Mr.\nDao stated the proposal is an extension of the current half cent sales tax and would be\naugmented by another half cent to one penny, which would be in perpetuity without\nsunset; however, the TEP would be brought to voters every 20 years.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Mr. Dao gave a presentation at the Planning Board meeting\nlast night; a number of questions came up; requested clarification on geographic equity\nand what allocations are specificity earmarked for Alameda.\nMr. Dao stated the geographic equity does not pertain to the TEP and relates to the\nCountywide Transportation Plan, which is a different plan; geographic equity is built in to\nthe TEP.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 8, "text": "In response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding population split, Mr. Dao stated\nthe TEP programs and projects are well balanced plan and achieve infrastructure to\naccommodate needs as well as geographic equity; 41% of the population is in the\nnorthern part of the County.\nMayor Gilmore stated Table 2 of the proposed funding has two items: the rapid bus\nservice at $9 million dollars and the Miller-Sweeny Bridge at $94 million; inquired\nwhether both are fully funded, to which Art Dao responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore stated Alameda would receive $103 million dollars if the measure\npasses.\nMr. Dao noted the Broadway-Jackson interchange project is included as well.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the Broadway-Jackson interchange,\nMr. Dao stated projects are seldomly funded solely with sales tax money; aside from\nsales tax money, regional, State and federal discretionary funds can be pursued;\nprovided an example.\nAndy Slivka, Carpenters Union, Alameda County Building Trades Council and Alameda\nresident, urged Council to approve the plan and support placing the matter on the ballot.\nJohn Knox White, Planning Board, stated five out of six Planning Board members\nsupport placing the measure on the ballot; expressed concern with only two projects\nbeing approved by the voters and the mechanism for leveraging funds; discussed\nCouncilmembers serving on regional bodies.\nMayor Gilmore concurred with Mr. Knox White's suggestion to have Council policies\nregarding Councilmembers serving on regional bodies.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he supports the Planning Board motion and urged\nsupporting placing the measure on the ballot; stated the Plan is already behind the\ncurve for bike and transit use.\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda, expressed skepticism regarding sea level rise and\nquestioned whether Mr. Knox White's employer works on related projects.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry about projects, Mr. Dao stated the\nMiller-Sweeny Bridge, Park Street Bridge and the High Street Bridge all fall under the\nmajor commute corridor category which has $800 million in funding; ACTC selects\nwhich projects to fund through a biannual capital improvement plan process; corridor\nprojects could be partially or fully funded.\nMs. Lengyel, ACTC Deputy Director of Policy, Public Affairs and Legislation, stated the\nCounty recognizes the importance of the two bridge projects; the Miller-Sweeny Bridge\nis in Tier 1 funding, which is considered to be fully funded; the TEP and the Countywide\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 9, "text": "to serve and have the force of the Council behind her.\nCouncilmember Tam stated regional equity and geographic equity are the type of issues\nrepresentatives should advocate.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the matter should be placed on agenda for discussion.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff can work with the Planning Board on the internal\npolicy for the regional boards for greenhouse effects, sea level rise, cost overruns, and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 10, "text": "geographic equity and may even identify some others; then, the matter would be\nbrought to Council.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she opposes using a population basis for allocating\nfunding.\nThe Public Works Director stated Planning Board Member Knox White has indicated\nthere is urgency to get something to ACTC on geographic equity.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated\nPlanning Board Member Knox White suggested sending a letter to ACTC regarding a\ngeographic equity goal; staff could address said issue and craft a letter to ACTC for the\nCity Manager's signature.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the matters discussed [establishing\npolicies for Councilmembers serving on regional boards and directing staff to draft a\nletter to ACTC].\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nMayor Gilmore requested the letter be reviewed by Vice Mayor Bonta.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-242) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Enter into Negotiations with\nKemperSports for the Long-Term Operation of the Chuck Corica Golf Complex.\nThe City Manager and former Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Gilmore expressed concern over assurances regarding financial capability.\nThe City Manager provided information on both companies.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's further comments, the City Manager stated that that he\ndoes not see a problem [with either company]; the opportunity for delay and controversy\nled staff, on a close call, to select KemperSports\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about KemperSports creating a buffer, to which the\nCity Manager responded the City is not at that level of negotiations yet; noted the lease\nwould come to Council for a vote.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired about the structure of Greenway Golf Golf's\npartnership.\nThe former Recreation and Parks Director stated Greenway Golf will bring in outside\ninvestors for part of the funding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 11, "text": "In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about Greenway Golf's partners, the\nformer Recreation and Parks Director stated the three main partners are George Kelley,\nKen Campbell and Marc Logan.\nThe City Manager noted Greenway Golf is a corporation.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether staff interprets Greenway Golf partnering with\noutside investors as a sign of financial weakness, to which the former Recreation and\nParks Director responded in the negative.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, David Sams, Golf Consultant, reviewed\nExhibit 3 from the staff report.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding improvements, Mr. Sams\noutlined both plans.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether tree changes have been analyzed, to which\nMr. Sams responded in the negative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding trees, George Kelley and\nMarc Logan, Greenway Golf Golf, responded about 15 to 18 small trees would be\nimpacted.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the trees were memorial trees, to which Mr.\nLogan responded that he did not have said information.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired about the amount the trees that would remain in\nplace, to which Mr. Logan stated around 90%.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiries, Mr. Logan outlined the style and\nlook of the proposed course and memorial trees.\nMayor Gilmore requested review of drainage.\nMr. Sams stated [Greenway Golf's proposal for] 800,000 yards would greatly improve\ndrainage; a slope of 2% is needed for drainage; Monarch Bay did something similar to\nKemperSport's proposal to install drain lines; drainage is much better than 11 years ago\nand would be a five or a six under KemperSports; Greenway Golf would bring it up to a\nnine or a ten.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the south course is built on an old dump site; inquired\nwhether only six holes would be impacted.\nThe former Recreation and Parks Director responded KemperSports identifies six holes\nas having potential problems; KemperSport's proposal calls for a study and areas with\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 12, "text": "environmental concerns would be capped with dirt.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether proposed green fees are known, to which the\nformer Recreation and Parks Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the fees could be an issue in the financial projections\nand are relevant at this point.\nMr. Sams stated both proposers are very savvy when it comes to marketing in the Bay\nArea and are not going to price themselves out of the market place.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated rates for residents, juniors and school golf programs\nhave been discussed and should continue similarly.\nMr. Sams stated typically cities keep control of the resident rates and operators\nmaintain the non-residents rates.\nThe former Recreation and Parks Director stated staff has heard the desire to protect\nresident and senior rates and high school teams access, which can be addressed in the\nlease.\nCouncilmember Tam requested information about bringing in dirt and what triggers a\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis and Environmental Impact Report\n(EIR).\nMr. Logan stated outlined Greenway Golf's proposal.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether there would be 180 trucks per day for 26\nweeks, to which Mr. Logan responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired if it would be for seven days a week or five days a\nweek, to which Mr. Logan responded trucks would be working 5.5 days a week.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about the different staff estimate of 500 round trips a day.\nThe former Recreation and Parks Director responded the original calculations were\nbased on a 10 yard truck, which is standard; Greenway Golf's calculations were based\non a 30 yard truck, which reduces the number of trips significantly.\nThe City Manager stated the fewer trucks are heaver trucks; further noted Greenway\nGolf's proposal tries to route the trucks in a way that would have minimal impact in\nresidential areas.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief review of environmental issues, including\nmoving soil, the drainage system and the flood plain.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 13, "text": "In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry about the amount of time it would take\nGreenway Golf to complete an EIR, the Planning Services Manager stated the draft EIR\ncould be done in six months, which is followed by a 45-day review period before the\nPlanning Board and Council make a final decision.\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 9:54 p.m. and returned at 9:55 p.m.\nExpressed support for selecting Greenway Golf Golf: George Humphreys, Alameda;\nBob Wood, Alameda; Mary Anderson, Alameda; Pam Curtis, Alameda; Dorothy Moody,\nAlameda; Bobbie Hoepner, Alameda; John Piziali, Alameda; Don Peterson, Alameda;\nChuck Kapelke, Alameda; Robert Sullwold, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; George\nKelly, Greenway Golf Golf; Mark Massara, San Francisco; Joe Van Winkle, Alameda;\nBill Schmitz, Alameda; Jane Sullwold, Alameda; Rob Salsig, Alameda; John Hasegawa,\nAlameda; and Tony Corica, Alameda.\nExpressed support for selecting KemperSports: Tim Scates (wife), Alameda, (submitted\ninformation); Connie Wendling, Alameda; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda;\nBetsy Gammell, Alameda; Norma Arnerich, Alameda; Ray Gaul, Alameda; and Ben\nBlake, KemperSports.\n*\n(12-243) Following Mr. Kapelke's comments, Vice Mayor Bonta moved approval of\nconsidering the ordinance establishing a depreciation policy [paragraph no. 12-246\nafter 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nVice Mayor Bonta left the dais at 10:31 p.m. and returned at 10:32 p.m.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:31 p.m. and returned at 10:34 p.m.\n(12-244) Following Ms. Arnerich's comments, Councilmember deHaan moved approval\nof continuing past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\n*\n***\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 11:01 p.m. and returned at 11:03 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 14, "text": "Vice Mayor Bonta inquired whether Mr. Sams indicated Greenway Golf improvements\nwould make the course a 9 or a 10, to which Mr. Sams responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the scale is a 1 to 10 scale, to which Mr. Sams\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what rating KemperSports would be, to which Mr. Sams\nresponded a 5 or 6.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry, Mr. Sams addressed links style.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired about a links course usage, to which Mr. Sams stated\nwhatever happens on the course, with Greenway Golf or KemperSports, play will\nincrease; more rounds would probably be played on the links style course then the par\ncourse.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether there is a conclusive answer about removal of\nmemorial trees.\nThe former Recreation and Parks Director responded staff does not have an exact\nnumber; stated the figure depends on the design.\nThe City Manager stated that he discussed the matter with Greenway Golf; he is\nconfident that staff, Greenway Golf and folks who have worked on the memorial tree\nprogram can come to a solution; no one can promise memorial trees will not be moved;\nGreenway Golf is aware of the matter and will double its efforts to avoid creating any\ncontroversy.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Bonta's inquiry about the needs for a financial partner, Mr.\nKelley stated Greenway Golf needs a financial partner; Greenway Golf is a smaller\ncompany, with 12 management contracts and does not have millions of dollars in a\nbank account; Greenway Golf convinced a very well qualified investor that the endeavor\nis worthwhile; the investor is a very sophisticated Silicon Valley individual with 30 years\nexperience and says he has never failed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Kelley would relocate locally.\nMr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated moving to the area is the main reason he\nwants the contract.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Kelley would be on site during the\nrenovation period, to which Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the South course should be considered links\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 15, "text": "style, to which Mr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated early articles describe the\nSouth course as being links style; characterized links style; further stated the North\ncourse would never play similarly; there would be two distinctly different styles available.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding pesticides use reduction,\nMr. Kelley responded that he has not been able to see the current pesticides used;\nGreenway Golf's pesticide reduction has been anywhere from 30% to 70%.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Greenway Golf could commit to pesticide\nreduction during the negotiation phase.\nMr. Kelly responded in the affirmative; stated Greenway Golf's turf management\nprogram involves less inputs: less water, less pesticide, and less fertilizer; less grass is\ngrown to reduce input.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether pesticides reduction is because there is less\ngrass.\nMr. Kelley responded said reduction is because of less growth, not less grass;\ndiscussed grasses.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether it would be the same for the North course, to\nwhich Mr. Kelley responded in the affirmative; stated the North course would start\nalmost immediately; a special machine from Australia introduces kokua grass into the\nsurface with minimal disruption; explained the process.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding animal management, Mr.\nKelley stated there is not really a friendly way to deal with animals.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would prefer not killing unwanted animals;\nusing natural predators does not bother her; a better way than trapping and euthanizing\nshould be sought and discussed during negotiations; inquired how the matter is handled\nnow.\nThe former Recreation and Parks Director responded dogs are used to deal with the\ngoose problem; stated there is not an active trapping program.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the Mif Albright course, Mr.\nBlake stated a new practice area will be built, the greens will be resurfaced, and the\nquality will be raised.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the area would work as a training academy.\nBen Blake, KemperSports, responded the driving range will be significantly improved,\nwhich will help with teaching; there are a series of steps; beginner golfers are taught\nhow to hit the ball; the first step is to go to the Mif and learn the nuances of the game\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 16, "text": "and how to get around a course; then, they graduate to the nine hole course.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding junior golf, John Vest,\nKemperSports, stated KemperSports currently works with the junior golf board on\nprograms; outlined efforts.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether [playing] capacity could be improved.\nMr. Blake responded there is room; the course is not at full capacity; currently, there is\nmore capacity on the South course; on Saturdays, the North course is booked from\ndaybreak until 11 a.m.; a better managed course would bring more play to the South\ncourse.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired if the South course is played about 30% less than the\nNorth course, to which Mr. Blake responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the number of days there is no play\nbecause the course has not drained, the former Recreation and Parks Director stated\nprobably 2 to 3 days or up to a week, depending on the severity of the storm.\nMayor Gilmore inquired after each episode or each year, to which the former Recreation\nand Parks Director responded up to five days might be lost after saturation is reached.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether Greenway Golf renovations would cause play to come\nback faster.\nMr. Sams responded in the affirmative; stated carts would be able to leave the paths\nquicker.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Greenway Golf's design of the South course\nwould be walker friendly; noted the PGA is encouraging people to walk golf courses.\nMr. Sams responded even bringing in 800,0000 yards of material, the course will be\npretty flat; stated that he has not seen the design; the distance from the green to the\nnext tee box cannot be a far distance because of the property size.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated if Greenway Golf is selected, direction should be given\nto ensure people are encouraged to walk.\nCouncilmember deHaan expressed his appreciation for reaching this point.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Greenway Golf would be putting a lot more resources\ninto the South course; inquired whether projections for play on the North course would\nstay as strong.\nMr. Kelley responded the South course would be the preferred course once renovated;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 17, "text": "the renovation plans for the North course will make it excellent as well; Rees Jones is a\nbig name and will generate national publicity; people coming to the Bay Area from out of\ntown will have read about a new Rees Jones course in Alameda, will fly into Oakland\nAirport and be right there; the South course is going to be more popular, but the North\ncourse is not going to suffer in anyway in terms of popularity, especially with locals.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the North course\nimprovements, Mr. Kelley stated there is going to be new grass and new tees; greens\nwill be slowly converted to bank grass which is one of Greenway Golf's trademarks;\nbunkers will be redone; drainage will be installed; there will be significant improvements.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Greenway Golf's intention is to make the\ncourse a walker friendly course, to which Mr. Kelley responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of directing the City Manager to negotiate with\nGreenway Golf.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the staff recommendation is well designed and tries to\nminimize risk; inquired whether the motion is to have the City Manager enter into\nnegotiations with Greenway Golf for the long term operation of the golf course; however,\nshould the negotiations fail to yield a lease within 45 days, the City would look at\nKemperSports.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager clarified the lease would be negotiated within 45 days; the City's 12\nday notice period would not count as part of the 45 day period.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she wants thought given on how to hold the company's feet\nto the fire once the contract and renovations are done; the City hears complaints from\ngolfers about maintenance issues not being addressed in a timely fashion; that she\nwants thought to be given to addressing said issues going forward; the process has\nbeen really good; the Council reserves the right to make the decision that feels correct\nafter having thoughtfully listened to the input of both staff and residents.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated staff should set up solid milestones.\n*\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 11:45 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:51 p.m.\n*\n(12-245) Adoption of Resolution to Accept the Parks/Urban Greening Master Plan. Not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 18, "text": "heard.\n(12-246) Introduction of Ordinance Establishing a Depreciation Policy for City Vehicles,\nEquipment, and Facilities. Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Manager and City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance only applies to facilities built or\nrenovated using Measure C funding, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the ordinance would apply to other facilities,\nto which the Assistant City Manager responded in the negative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding collecting money according\nto the life expectancy of equipment, the City Manager stated the policy says equipment\nis to be sold and the money set aside is used to replace the equipment.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the annual costs have been projected, to\nwhich the Assistant City Manager responded the Police and Fire Chiefs have done\nsome work on costs.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding facilities, the City Manager\nstated the life has to be determined on a case by case basis; a fire station had a 75 year\nuseful life; long term leases run 66 years.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether routine maintenance is included, to which the\nAssistant City Manager responded for facilities, not for vehicles.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding resale value and replacement of\na fire engine, the Assistant City Manager responded decisions are made on a case by\ncase basis; most recently, apparatus have be leased because it made the most financial\nsense.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, questioned why the City is not adopting the policy citywide,\nindependent of Measure C.\nMayor Gilmore, Councilmembers Tam and Johnson and the City Manager responded\nthe City cannot afford to do so.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the policy could apply to new purchases made\nwithout Measure C funds, to which the City Manager responded in the negative; stated\nall new public safety vehicles would be purchased under Measure C.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the ordinance cannot apply to everything because a\ndesignated funding source is required.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 19, "text": "Councilmember deHaan noted the City has $3 million set aside for vehicles, which\nshould last 3 to 4 years.\nThe City Manager stated staff does not agree with said assessment; the Public Works\nfleet alone would use the entire amount; Measure C would keep the bank from\nbreaking.\nThe Assistant City Manager reviewed vehicles not covered by Measure C.\nThe City Manager stated staff could visit expansion if Measure C passes.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated departments would have to be severely cut to increase\npayments to the internal service funds.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the depreciation money is from Measure C, to which\nthe City Manager responded in the negative; stated the money would be from the\nGeneral Fund.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether staff is confident that the City will be able to\nkeep up with the depreciation coming from the General Fund, to which the City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-247) The City Manager thanked everyone for the excellent process on golf.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-248) Jon Spangler, Alameda, urged Council to consider types on of businesses in\nthe business districts.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 20, "text": "(12-249) Councilmember deHaan stated that he would change his vote on the\ndepreciation ordinance [paragraph no. 12-246 to an aye with the caveat that it is what\nthe Council intended to do.\nADJOURNMENT\n(12-250) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n12:16 a.m. in memory of Police Officer Dave Ellis and U.S. Army Sergeant Tom\nFogerty.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 21, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 15, 2012- -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:04 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:08 p.m. and Councilmember Johnson arrived at\n6:15 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-220) Public Employee Performance Evaluation (54957); Title: City Manager John\nRusso.\n(12-221) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nCity (People of the State of California, ex rel. Mooney, et al) V. Collins, et al.; Superior\nCourt of California, Alameda County Case No. RG11593720; Lawsuit against owners of\n2229-2235 Clement Avenue to abate nuisance, dangerous conditions, blight; and Name\nof Case: Collins V. City of Alameda City; Superior Court of California, Alameda County\nCase No. RG07310684; Owners of 2229-2235 Clement Avenue in 2007 challenged the\nCity's General Plan and zoning after the City Council rejected the owners' development\nproposal.\n(12-222) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Holly\nBrock-Cohn, Human Resources Director, and Masa Shiohira, Contract Labor\nNegotiator; Employee Organizations: Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation; Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions).\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced regarding Performance Evaluation, the Council; regarding Existing\nLitigation, the Council and regarding Labor, the Council\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:04 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\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-05-15", "page": 22, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY-MAY - 15, 2012- -6:58 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Vice Mayor Bonta led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-223) Gretchen Lipow, Alameda, urged Council to review the campaign finance\nordinance; submitted information.\n(12-224) Kurt Peterson, Alameda, made brief comments.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(12-225) Resolution No. 14673, \"Amending Resolution No. 14637 to Move the June 5,\n2012 Regular City Council Meeting to June 6, 2012 due to the Special Election.\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nMayor Gilmore announced that the regular meeting would be adjourned in memory of\nPolice Officer Dave Ellis and U.S. Army Sergeant Tom Fogerty; and discussed lowering\nflags. There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:24\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\nMay 15, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-05-15.pdf"}