{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 17, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 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(12-378) Proclamation Recognizing Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) for 125 Years of\nService; and Presentation to the City of Alameda by the State of California Legislative\nOffice Commending AMP on Its 125th Anniversary of Providing Public Power.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to the members of the Public\nUtilities Board and AMP General Manager.\n(12-379) Proclamation Recognizing the City's Antique Fire Apparatus Volunteers.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Richard Davis, Charles Daniels,\nRichard Bennett, Kenneth Rankin and Douglas Clifton.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-380) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed financial practices and commingling funds.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that final passage of the Housing Element ordinance\n[paragraph no. 12-397 was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Tam noted that she would abstain from voting on the Clean Lakes, Inc.\n[paragraph no. 12-387).\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 2, "text": "(*12-381) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on June 19,\n2012. Approved.\n(*12-382) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,389,511.51.\n(*12-383) 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. Accepted.\n(*12-384) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Repair of Portland Cement Concrete Sidewalk, Curb, Gutter, Driveway, and\nMinor Street Patching, FY12-13, Phase 13, No. P.W. 04-12-08. Accepted.\n(*12-385) Recommendation to Reject the Sole Bid and Authorize a New Call for Bids for\nUrban Forest Maintenance Services (Citywide), No. P.W. 06-11-16. Accepted.\n(*12-386) Recommendation to Allocate $80,000 from the Sewer Enterprise Fund and\nAward a Contract in the Amount of $430,000, Including Contingencies, to Roto Rooter\nfor Sewer Point Repairs and Asphalt Concrete Replacement within the City of Alameda,\nNo. P.W. 05-12-09. Accepted.\n(*12-387) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $107,000, Including\nContingencies, to Clean Lakes, Inc. for Vegetation Management, Debris Management,\nand Water Quality Monitoring for the South Shore Lagoons, No. P.W. 05-12-11, Subject\nto Funding Approval by the Alameda West Lagoon Homeowners Association's Board of\nDirectors. Accepted.\nNote: The staff recommendation passed by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers\nBonta, deHaan, Johnson and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.\n(*12-388) Recommendation to Allocate $37,500 from the Sewer Enterprise Fund and\nApprove a Second Amendment to the Contract with Waterworks Engineers for the\nPreparation of Engineering Documents for the Upgrade of the City of Alameda Sewer\nPump Stations, Phase 3: Bay Farm Island Pump Station Rehabilitation, No. P.W. 12-10-\n35. Accepted.\n(*12-389) Recommendation to Endorse the East Bay Economic Development Alliance's\nOpen for Business Pledge. Accepted.\n(*12-390) Resolution No. 14719, \"Ratifying the Public Utilities Board's Approval of the\nNorthern California Power Agency Legislative and Regulatory Program Agreement.\"\nAdopted.\n(*12-391) Resolution No. 14720, \"Ratifying the Public Utility Board's Approval of the\nAmended and Restated Market Purchase Program Agreement with the Northern\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 3, "text": "California Power Agency.' Adopted.\n(*12-392) Resolution No. 14721, \"Accepting Agreements with Allsport America Inc.,\nDoing Business As, Sport Court Tennis for Rehabilitation of Tennis Courts (Various\nLocations), Funded by Measure WW in an Amount Not to Exceed $350,000.\" Adopted;\nand\n(*12-392 A) Resolution No. 14722, \"Accepting Service Agreement with Community\nPlaygrounds for Demolition and Installation of Tillman Park Playground Funded by\nMeasure WW in an Amount Not to Exceed $31,048. Adopted.\n(*12-393) Resolution No. 14723, \"Calling for a General Municipal Election to be\nConsolidated with the Statewide General Election to be Held in the City of Alameda on\nTuesday, November 6, 2012 and Requesting the Alameda County Board of Supervisors\nto Permit the Registrar of Voters to Render Specified Services to the City Relating to the\nConduct of Said Election.\" Adopted.\n(*12-394) Resolution No. 14724, \"Amending Resolution No. 14637 to Add July 24, 2012\nas a Regular City Council Meeting.' Adopted.\n(*12-395) Ordinance No. 3052, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with Delphi\nProductions, Inc. for Five Years in Building 39 at Alameda Point, 950 West Tower\nAvenue.\" Finally passed.\n(*12-396) Ordinance No. 3053, \"Approving a Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Lease with American\nBus Repair LLC, dba Coach Specialties for Two Years in a Portion of Building 24 at\nAlameda Point, 2301 Monarch Street.' Finally passed.\n(12-397) Ordinance No. 3054, \"Amending Various Sections of the Alameda Municipal\nCode Contained in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) to Ensure Consistency\nBetween the State Housing Element Law, the City of Alameda General Plan and the\nCity of Alameda Municipal Code.\" Finally passed.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a Power Point presentation.\nSpoke in opposition of the ordinance: Adam Garfinkle, Alameda; Barbara Rasmusson,\nAlameda; Connie Branson, Alameda; Lola Brown, Alameda; Dorothy Freeman,\nAlameda; Ashley Jones, Alameda; Lester Cabral, Alameda; Gail deHaan, Alameda;\nAlexander Stevens, Alameda; Jim Smallman, Alameda; Corinne Lambden, Alameda;\nDarcy Morrison, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda (submitted information); Carol\nGottstein, Alameda; former Councilmember Karin Lucas, Alameda; Bill Stallman,\nAlameda; and Reyla Graber, Alameda.\n*\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 4, "text": "During Mr. Garfinkle's comments, Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:18 p.m. and\nreturned at 8:20 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore outlined the process followed to develop housing; stated the City is\nsimply identifying sites where housing could be built, the City is not responsible for\nactually building housing; a developer or some other entity would pick a site and build\nhousing on the site; projects still have to go through the entire planning process, which\nincludes noticed hearings in front of the Planning Board; a California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) document might be required to address traffic mitigations, building\nheight limits, and other things; the Housing Element simply identifies sites where\nhousing can be built.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated Alameda Point was not included because staff\nwas nervous the land would not be available during the planning period; \"available\"\nmeans a site has to be zoned for residential use and available to the market; Alameda\nPoint is still under Navy ownership and is not available; last time, the City had a\ncarryover of 345 units because Alameda Point was promised to be available by 2006\nand is still not available; the next round will be much easier when Alameda Point is\navailable; staff did not want to make any promises that cannot be kept because when\npromises are not kept cities are penalized under State law.\nFollowing Ms. Rasmusson's comments, the Planning Services Manager responded\nmultifamily housing could be built anywhere if the courts throw out Measure A; the\nCharter would only allow multifamily housing on sites identified to meet the State\nobligation if Measure A is preserved for the rest of the City; multifamily zoning would be\nprohibited by the Charter after the State obligation is met.\nThe City Manager stated Alameda Point is not a panacea because the agreement with\nthe Navy limits the City to 1,425 housing units at Alameda Point; putting 4,000 units at\nAlameda Point does not pencil out; every project has to go through the CEQA process,\nthe Planning Board process, and deal with traffic mitigations and all other density\nissues.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City is identifying sites for 2,400 units; 1,700 units will be\nrequired in the next round if the Housing Element is passed.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested staff to explain where the initial numbers come from.\nThe City Manager responded the number is a State generated number.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Association of Bay Area Governments\n(ABAG) sets the number.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the State of California identifies how much\nhousing the entire State needs; stated then, the State gives each region a portion,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 5, "text": "which is where ABAG becomes involved; ABAG is the regional governing entity for the\nBay Area; ABAG works with all the cities to allocate the units among the various cities;\nAlameda is no different than any every other city; all cities are concerned about traffic\nand have difficulty accommodating more housing; ABAG comes up with formulas on\nhow to distribute units; the formula is very complicated and takes into account regional\npolicies such as reducing greenhouse gases, preserving farmland, and access to\ntransit; ABGA gave Alameda just under 2,100 units; the Housing Element was written\nfor said number; the State sent Alameda a letter in 2009 indicating the City failed in the\nlast round and received a penalty, which added 374 units.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Alameda previously appealed an ABAG number and\nwon at the ABAG level, but ultimately lost at the State level.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding challenging the number, the\nPlanning Services Manager stated the City has not done so since 2006; challenges are\nvery difficult; some other city has to accept the units if ABAG takes the housing units\naway from Alameda; ABAG has to allocate all units and cannot tell the State the number\nis too high.\nDiscussed legal options under State and environmental law: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nDiscussed complicated language and public noticing of the Housing Element; and\nprotecting Measure A: Mary Anderson, Alameda.\nFollowing Ms. Anderson's comments, the City Attorney explained the State's authority\nover housing; stated the government has a hierarchy with most power at the federal\nlevel, then, the State, then, local levels; California has Charter cities and general law\ncities; general law cities are created pursuant to statute and can only do what the\nlegislature authorizes; Charter cities have more power; the State constitution allows for\nCharter cities as long as matters in the Charter are of municipal interest; for matters of\nStatewide interest, the State preempts the Charter; regarding the Housing Element, the\nState has stepped in and said providing housing is of Statewide concern; therefore, the\nState directs what the City has to do; staff has been trying very hard to protect as much\nof the interpretation of Measure A as possible while still conforming with the\nrequirements of State law; the overlay is being done to prevent losing all of Measure A's\nprovisions; a density bonus ordinance had to be passed because the matter was a\nStatewide concern; the City passed a density bonus ordinance and still maintained\nMeasure A; the City has to take a similar action [on the Housing Element] because\nMeasure A could be found unconstitutional if challenged, since it does allow the City to\ncomply with State law.\nDiscussed ways to get around State law and unit size designation for tax purposes: Bill\nStallman, Alameda.\nUrged the Council to adopt the ordinance: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make\nEconomic Sense (HOMES); Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 6, "text": "Collaborative; Kathryn Neale Manalo, Alameda; Darin Lounds, East Bay Housing\nOrganizations (EBHO); Jon Spangler, Alameda; Deni Adaniya, Alameda; Joy Chin\nMalloy, Alameda; Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing Advocates; Don Lattin,\nAlameda; Amie Fishman, EBHO; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle; Jean Fong, Alameda;\nAustin Tam, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista United Methodist Church; and\nformer Supervisor Alice Lai Bitker, Alameda.\n***\nDuring Mr. Spangler's comments, Vice Mayor Bonta left the dais at 9:15 p.m. and\nreturned at 9:17 p.m.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether or not the housing numbers would be different if the\nCity left ABAG.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated Corte Madera left ABAG in March; other neighboring\ncities were talking about leaving and decided not to follow because they would be losing\ntheir voice at the table.\nThe City Manager stated cities that do not belong to ABAG are not at the table to argue.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired stated Alameda has taken its fair share in the last 15\nyears and has a mandatory 25% set aside for all development and 15% for infill\nprojects; the City moved forward with density bonus and was not stopped by Measure\nA; the City did in-law units without being told to do so; housing has been built for\nseniors, the disabled and veterans; homeless accommodations have been included in\nBase conversion; the new City Manager issues press releases and community\nadvisories at least once a week; he did not see one press release on the Housing\nElement.\nThe City Manager noted the front page of the newspaper has an article, \"Planning\nSeeks Input on New Housing Element.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Encinal terminals and Chipman projects includes 24\nacres to be developed and a total of 11 households were notified, which is not\nadequate; although the City has been working with the housing group, not everyone in\nthe community knew; the outreach needs to be understood; the rest of the community\nis\nforgotten; the Housing Element is not an individual property site that requires 300 foot\nnoticing; the entire City would be impacted; Alameda is the third highest, densest\ncommunity in Alameda County and has some unique constraints; that he has some\nconcerns.\nThe City Manager stated staff works hard to maintain lines of communication; the matter\nwas discussed on blogs and in newspapers; the Housing Element is five years late and\nstating the community does not know excludes community members who did\nparticipate; questioned whether other matters of Citywide concern, such as the budget,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 7, "text": "should require notification to every household; staff more than exceeded State law;\nPlanning Board agendas now have seven day notice, not three; Council meetings are\nnoticed 12 days, not three; the City has produced advisories since the new\nadministration has taken over, which he is proud of; people who write and call, receive\nanswers; addressed the timing of the hearing; stated staff is doing its best to preserve\nthe way of life in Alameda.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked the Planning Services Manager for his work and the\ncomprehensive presentation detailing all public engagement opportunities; stated the\nhearing is robust community dialogue and exchange of ideas; the staff proposal is\na\ncommon sense, practical, pragmatic approach, which is prudent both financially and\nlegally; the City is out of compliance with State law and needs to get certified; the City\nhas not had a certified Housing Element for 22 years; adoption preserves the City's\naccess to State funding, avoids lawsuits, keeps local control and provides housing\noptions for all residents.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Tam stated the meeting culminates a long public\nprocess; the Housing Element ensures community concerns can be addressed by\npreserving local control over Measure A, rather than having control taken away by the\nState or courts; quality of life concerns will be addressed under CEQA when projects\ncommence; the proposed overlay is a creative way of preserving Measure A; thanked\nstaff.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired how much transportation funding the City could face\nlosing without a certified Housing Element, to which the Planning Services Manager\nresponded the amount for the next round for the entire Bay Area is $320 million.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the State is coming down harder on cities without an\nadopted Housing Element; all cities have unique circumstances and do not agree with\nthe number of units assigned; Alameda has had positive things from Measure A, but\nMeasure A does not prevent the demolition of historic structures; the Council adopted\nan ordinance which requires a process before demolishing a historic structure; the City\nfaces great risk if the Housing Element is not certified; there could be loss of control\nover the permit process and the loss of Measure A; the staff proposal would preserve\nMeasure A and result in a certified Housing Element to avoid consequences; the City\nhas to comply with State law; the City would not eliminate the 2,400 unit requirement by\nnot adopting the Housing Element.\nMayor Gilmore stated the State does not care about Alameda's uniqueness; a court\nwould come to the conclusion that Measure A does not comply with State law, which is\na problem for the City; the entire Island would lose Measure A; the City has taken a\nrational approach to identify 10 sites to comply with State law and maintain Measure A\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 8, "text": "for the rest of the Island; State law cannot be avoided; other cities have faced detriment\nby trying to avoid State law; the Housing Element is a way to come into compliance with\nState law; more so than complying with State law, the Housing Element is the right thing\nto do; older people want to stay in Alameda and should have the opportunity to move to\nsmaller homes; young adults cannot afford to live in Alameda; hard working people\nshould have the opportunity to live in Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan read from the ordinance; stated parking waivers are not\nmoving in the right direction; that he would not support the ordinance; the matter is not\nabout affordable housing but is about how the ordinance is constructed; pre-Measure A\ndid not allow the type of building being proposed.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following roll call vote:\nCouncilmembers Bonta: Aye; deHaan: No; Johnson: Aye; Tam: Aye; and Mayor\nGilmore: Aye. Ayes - 4. Noes - 1.\n* *\n(12-398) Councilmember Tam moved approval of considering all of the regular agenda\nitems after 10:30 p.m.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n*\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 10:21 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:30 p.m.\n*\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-399) Update on the Status of the Utilities Underground District Program Redesign.\nThe AMP General Manager gave a brief presentation.\nUrged Council to move forward with the proposed program redesign: Corinne Lambden,\nAlameda.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding scheduling, the AMP\nGeneral Manager stated prioritization is one of the fundamental problems; so many\ncriteria have been added over the years; a strategy would be developed to prioritize\nhigh public benefit projects for the majority of ratepayers; financial assistance may differ\nfrom project to project, which is not accounted for under current criteria.\nCouncilmember Tam moved acceptance of the report.\nCouncilmember Tam expressed concern with the public participation process taking too\nlong.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 9, "text": "The AMP General Manager stated a minimum customer acceptance threshold was\nestablished for cases when the notice was done years ago; Phase 6 from 2004 had 10\ndistricts, which is too many districts; going forward, the time between deciding on a\ndistrict and building would be as short as possible; the list would come back more\nfrequently.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding multi-family homes, the\nAMP General Manager stated multi-family homes do not receive any money from AMP,\nwhich will change; the current way payment is done is very confusing; all changes will\nbe done together following community input.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 10:47 p.m. and returned at 10:48 p.m.\n*\n(12-400) Recommendation to Accept the Social Service Human Relations Board\n(SSHRB) Community Needs Assessment - Summary of Results.\nCynthia Wasko, SSHRB Chair, gave a Power Point presentation.\nMayor Gilmore thanked Ms. Wasko and the SSHRB members; stated the survey is an\nexcellent tool and would also benefit the School District.\n*\n(12-401) Councilmember deHaan moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nVice Mayor Bonta thanked Ms. Wasko and the SSHRB; stated the survey is always\nimproving; knowing trends over time and isolating areas of interest would be very\nhelpful; inquired about the disparity between census data and the number of Asian\nrespondents.\nMs. Wasko stated the survey was available in Chinese and published in a Chinese\nnewspaper; contacts within the Asian community were also used; noted 190 people did\nnot respond to the question [about ethnicity], which could tip the scale; stated better\noutreach would be done next time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Alameda could be compared to other cities,\nto which Ms. Wasko responded several questions were also asked by other cities;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 10, "text": "stated the comparison would be the SSHRB's next step if there is time; the survey was\nselected in order to allow comparison to other cities.\nCouncilmember Johnson thanked Ms. Wasko and the SSHRB; stated the survey\nprovides better understanding of the community.\nCouncilmember Tam expressed her appreciation; stated the community services noted\nin the presentation are generally provided by non-profits or the County; inquired why the\nneed for library services is listed so high and whether there is an access issue; noted\npublic safety is similar.\nMs. Wasko responded one explanation could be people really value library services and\nsee having a library in the community as one of the highest needs; stated health\nservices become the highest priority for lower income; senior services become a higher\npriority for central Alameda; the Board looks forward to having a joint meeting with the\nCouncil to review the data; all non-profits can access the raw data and do analysis.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved approval of accepting the needs assessment.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-402) Recommendation to Acknowledge Rent Increase Concerns at 300 Westline\nDrive and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply with\nthe Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) Recommendations.\nDavid Perry, RRAC, gave a brief presentation.\nProvided background information on the rent increase and issues and urged Council to\napprove the staff recommendation: Mark Dahmen, Renter.\nProvided background information and spoke in opposition of the recommendation Erin\nJohnson, Prometheus-Property Community Manager; and Jason Villareal, Prometheus.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she appreciates Ms. Johnson and Mr. Villareal coming and\nproviding information; however, the item probably could have been avoided if the\nproperty management sent someone to the RRAC meeting to resolve the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated that she would recommend\nsending the matter back to the RRAC and Council could revisit the issue if it is not\nresolved.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the suggestion is good; the RRAC hearing is the\nprocess for resolving disputes between tenants and landlords in a more amicable way;\nAlameda does not have rent control; the process should be followed.\nVice Mayor Bonta concurred; stated the whole point of the process is to try to mediate\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 11, "text": "the dispute; inquired whether there is a reason why the property managers did not\nattend the RRAC meeting.\nMr. Villareal responded a similar RRAC meeting was held about a year ago; his\ncolleague provided the same data, which was not listened to or well received by the\nRRAC; the matter reached an impasse, so the company decided to let the matter\nescalate to the Council.\nFollowing brief questions regarding past experience at the RRAC, Mayor Gilmore stated\nthe Council is strongly suggesting that the property managers go back and present data\nto the RRAC.\n(12-403) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Enter into\nPurchase Agreements Not to Exceed $69,000 and Financing Agreements for an\nAmount Not to Exceed $2,171,000 for the Replacement of Fire Department Apparatus.\nThe Fire Chief gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the equipment would be leased.\nThe Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the truck, engine and ambulance\nwould be leased.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the annual cost, the Fire\nChief stated about $190,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether depreciation would be done.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the depreciation ordinance was contingent on\nthe passage of Measure C.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated depreciation should go forward with the procurements.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City does not have money to pay for depreciation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how much money is in the reserves for procurement.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the equipment replacement fund had a\nbeginning balance of $3.4 million in the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about other departments and\nwould prefer having all purchases at one time.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the purchases were all included in the budget;\nCouncil approved a total appropriation and spending of $1.036 million out of $3.4\nmillion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired why the purchase is separate.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the action is to actually purchase and finance\nthe equipment; stated Council approved the concept of moving forward with these\nparticular apparatuses and vehicles [when the budget was adopted].\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the take home vehicle, the\nFire Chief stated the vehicle would be his.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why a Sports Utility Vehicle (SUV) is recommended,\nto which the Fire Chief responded an SUV gives several advantages; stated a lot more\nequipment is now carried; he needs access to equipment when he assumes incident\ncommand.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the vehicle would be similar to other\ncommand vehicles.\nThe Fire Chief responded the vehicle is a smaller command vehicle and would provide\nredundancy.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding the type of vehicle, the Fire\nChief stated a Ford Taurus SUV would be purchased as opposed to an Expedition or a\nSuburban.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many miles are on the current vehicle, to which\nthe Fire Chief responded 50,000 miles; further stated the vehicle would still be used and\nwould replace a 1997 Crown Victoria.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted the Crown Victory has 146,498 miles; further stated\nthe Fire Department is rotating the use of the vehicles.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she does not want people under the impression\nthat the City is replacing a vehicle with 50,000 miles.\nThe Fire Chief stated a vehicle with 147,000 miles is being replaced; the vehicle with\n50,000 miles would remain in the fleet and be used.\nUrged approval of the staff recommendation: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Bonta requested staff to address what sort of equipment and vehicles could\nnot be purchases since the [June 6th ballot] Measure was not passed.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired what could not be funded in the Fire Department 10 year\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 13, "text": "July 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 14, "text": "(12-404) The City Manager announced the Target groundbreaking would be tomorrow\nmorning; stated all studies prepared since 2004, whether draft or final regarding\nassessments of Fire service, would be posted to the City's website by Thursday; that he\nwould be doing a review of the International City Managers Association (ICMA) study,\nwhich has some grave logical errors; staff is working on website difficulties that have\noccurred in the past several days; the Police Department now has a drop box for\nexpired medicines; City Council meetings to consider the Chuck Corica Golf Complex\nlease to Greenway Golf would be held next Tuesday and on July 31st, however, staff\nwould not bring a long term lease for Jim's on the Course.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-405) Carol Gottstein, Alameda, stated Councilmember deHaan had some good\npoints about the [Housing Element] noticing; at a public participation workshop, she\nprovided a bulletin by the American Planning Association on the problem of noticing the\npublic with planning speak; using words like Housing Element makes people's eyes\nglaze over; anything that tangentially touches Measure A should mention Measure A\nsomewhere in the headline; outlined typographical errors in the Housing Element she\nreviewed before the July 3rd Council meeting.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-406) Mayor Gilmore announced that she attended the Mayor's conference; the\nmajor discussion topic was the Bay Area Plan, which is the sustainable community\nstrategy, job, housing and transportation plan; a representative from ABAG's planning\nand research department gave the presentation.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 11:57 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\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 17, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:03 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Vice Mayor Bonta arrived at 6:06 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(12-374) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95); Claimant: William Scott; Agency\nClaimed Against: City of Alameda\n(12-375) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation (54956.9(c)): Number\nof Cases: Two\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding the Workers' Compensation Claim, the Council gave direction\nto staff; and regarding Anticipated Litigation, the Council gave direction to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:01 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\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--JULY 17, 2012--6:58 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. Councilmember Tam led the Pledge\nof Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam, and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(12-376) Recommendation to Find that Target Corporation is a Qualified Developer\nPursuant to the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA), and\nConsent to the Partial Assignment and Assumption Agreement (Disposition and\nDevelopment Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project) - Portion\nof Parcel 2), and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Required Documents.\nAccepted. [City Acting as Successor Agency to the Community Improvement\nCommission]; and\n(*12-376 A) Recommendation to Consent to Partial Assignment and Assumption\nAgreement (Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use Project) - Portion\nof Parcel 2) to Target Corporation, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the\nRequired Documents. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:13 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\nJuly 17, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-07-17", "page": 17, "text": "123\nMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nALAMEDA PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY (APFA) MEETING\nTUESDAY- -JULY 17, 2012--6:59 P.M.\nTHIS MEETING WAS CANCELLED.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(12-377 CC) Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of Resolution Approving Proceedings to\nFinance and Refinance Improvements to the City's Municipal Sewer System, Approving the\nIssuance and Sale of Sewer Revenue Bonds by the Alameda Public Financing Authority for\nSuch Purposes and Approving Related Documents and Official Actions; and\n(12-02 APFA) Adoption of Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Sewer Revenue Bonds to\nFinance and Refinance Improvements to the City of Alameda's Municipal Sewer System and\nApproving Related Documents and Official Actions. NOT HEARD.\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nPublic Financing Authority", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-07-17.pdf"}