{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER - 2, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m. Councilmember Johnson led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(12-471) Mayor Gilmore announced that the Public Hearing regarding final passage of\nthe ordinance [paragraph no. 12-487 was continued to October 16, 2012.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(12-472) Mayor Gilmore announced that she and the City Manager having been working\nto address the extensive noise at the Coliseum in Oakland the past Saturday night.\n(12-473) Proclamation Declaring October 7 through 13, 2012 as Public Power Week.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the Proclamation to Greg Hamm, Public Utilities\nBoard, and Girish Balachandran, Alameda Municipal Power Executive Director.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(12-474) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, announced that the Alameda Democratic Club\nwould be showing the Presidential debates.\n(12-475) Bill Garvine, Alameda, gave background information about Matt Hussain.\n(12-476) Matt Hussain, Alameda, made an announcement regarding an Aga Khan\nDevelopment Network event in Fremont and submitted information.\n(12-477) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed pension costs and employee salaries.\n(12-478) Jon Spangler, Alameda, urged signage be posted regarding the Smoking\nOrdinance.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the recommendation to authorize the City Manager or\nHis Designee to enter into Purchase Agreements for the Replacement of Ten Police\nDepartment Vehicles [paragraph no. 12-481 was removed from the Consent Calendar\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 2, "text": "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(*12-479) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings Held on September\n4, 2012. Approved.\n(*12-480) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,118,682.23.\n(12-481) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager or His Designee to Enter into\nPurchase Agreements Not to Exceed $302,000 for the Replacement of Ten Police\nDepartment Vehicles and not to Exceed $174,000 for One Special Response/Rescue\nVehicle.\nCouncilmember Tam requested staff to explain the thought process in financing an\noutright purchase as opposed to leasing.\nThe Police Lieutenant gave a brief presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry about the armed response specialty\nvehicle, the Acting Police Chief stated having the vehicle specifically assigned to\nAlameda would be better because of response times; Hayward, Fremont, Union City,\nand Oakland have armed specialty vehicles; sharing with San Leandro would make the\nmost sense geographically; however, the San Leandro Police Department wants its own\nvehicle; Alameda has had an armored vehicle since 1998; the engine froze last year\nand could not be repaired due to costs; armored vehicles are used on high risk search\nwarrants and Critical Incident Response Team calls, allow officers to go into dangerous\nenvironments and set up command in an area under fire or can be used to rescue a\ndowned officer or a citizen when other rescue options are not available.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired if the purchase would put the City on the regular\nreplacement schedule; stated the City's vehicle replacement schedule is five to six\nvehicles per year.\nThe Acting Police Chief responded the average replacement of patrol vehicles alone\nhas been about three and a half vehicles per year; stated staff cars and detective cars\nare usually in the fleet longer; the Department replaces patrol cars first and falls behind\non replacement of the other vehicles which are equally necessary; the Department is\ntrying to rectify the situation now.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how many vehicles the City anticipates replacing next\nyear, to which the Acting Police Chief responded the budget calls for replacement of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 3, "text": "seven vehicles.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he was surprised the armored vehicle was not\nnoted as a requirement as part of Measure C.\nThe Acting Police Chief stated the armored vehicle was on the priority list for Measure\nC, however, the fleet needed to be replaced first.\nThe City Manager noted the Measure C list was the subject of a tremendous amount of\nstaff debate.\nSuggested all items that involve spending money should include finance department\nprojections that the City will be broke in three years: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City always balances the budget every year; the City has a\n24% balance in the General Fund.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would go forward with depreciation.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative; stated that he did not want to debate\nMeasure C tonight; stated, in response to Mr. Peterson, the expense is not additional;\nthe money is already budgeted; further stated hopefully the City will be in a position to\nstart doing depreciation in three years.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City put money into the reserves to\nprocure and replace vehicles during the last budget cycle.\nThe City Manager responded money was placed in the General Fund reserve, not the\nvehicle replacement fund; the Council's policy is a 20% reserve; the City is at 24%;\ndiscussions about a two-year budget will occur in the next two months to produce the\nsound budgetary planning.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the City substantially eroding\nthe $3.1 million.\nThe City Manager stated the next budget would include an item to replenish the vehicle\nfund and the proposed depreciation process.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation; reiterated Measure\nC was supported by the City Auditor and the City Treasurer precisely because it\nprovided means to provide funding for depreciation; the vehicle replacements have\nbeen budgeted, approved, and the 24% reserve is still retained.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*12-482) Recommendation to Accept $375,000 from the US Department of Homeland\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 4, "text": "Security's Port Security Grant Program to Purchase a Fire Boat, and Authorize the City\nManager or His Designee to Enter into Purchase Agreements for an Amount not to\nExceed $500,000 for a Fully-Equipped Fire Boat. Accepted.\n(*12-483) Recommendation to Appropriate $160,000 in Gas Tax Funds and Award a\nContract in the Amount of $860,000 Including Contingencies, to West Coast Arborist for\nUrban Forest Maintenance Services (Citywide), No. P.W. 06-11-16. Accepted.\n(*12-484) Resolution No. 14732, \"Authorizing the Mayor to Execute a Grant Deed to the\nState of California, Department of Transportation, for Conveyance of the Right-of-Way\nAlong Webster Street and Stargell Avenue, and Authorizing the Mayor to Execute an\nAccommodation Recording Agreement with First American Title Company.\" Adopted.\n(*12-485) Ordinance No. 3055, \"Approving A Lease and Authorizing the City Manager to\nExecute Documents Necessary to Implement The Terms Of The Lease with Faction\nBrewing Company LLC for Five Years with Two Five-Year Options in a Portion of\nBuilding 22 at Alameda Point, 2501 Monarch Street.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-486) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14733, \"Approving Tentative Map\nPLN11-0223 to Develop an 11-Lot Subdivision on a 1.29-Acre Property Located at 2001\nVersailles Avenue Between Fernside Boulevard and Tilden Way.\" Adopted.\nThe Acting City Planner gave a brief presentation and provided a handout.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how parcels 9 and 10 would be accessed, to which\nthe Acting City Planner responded Parcel 9, 10 and 11 are accessed through a central\ncommon driveway.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the road comes back to Versailles and is a\ncul-de-sac, to which the Acting City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nUrged the removal of Condition 9 of the Tentative Map requiring opening a path: Bill\nGarvine, Alameda; Robert Bathiany, Alameda (submitted information); Colleen Arnerich,\nAlameda; Rich Bennett, Alameda (submitted original petition); Lester Cabral, Alameda;\nKim Hammond, Alameda; Gregg Dillenbeck, Alameda; Nelton Joe, Alameda; Jamie\nShauvin, Alameda; Tracie Klein, Alameda; and Nick Cote, Alameda.\nUrged the subdivision be rezoned from R2 to R1: Lester Cabral, Alameda\nUrged the removal of Condition 9 of the Tentative Map requiring opening a path and\nrevision to Condition 7 regarding affordable housing: Evan Schwimmer, Alameda.\nExpressed concern about noticing: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 5, "text": "Urged keeping the easement for a path as a future option: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she was concerned about the process complying\nwith the Brown Act; stated significant change after the close of public comment should\nbe noticed.\nThe City Attorney stated the Brown Act was not violated; the Brown Act only requires\nadequate notice of the topic of the item being discussed, not the individual pieces.\nMayor Gilmore stated often times matters come up in the course of discussion that\ncould not have been noticed in advance.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she agrees with Mayor Gilmore but disagrees\nabout the significance of the change.\nCouncilmember Tam questioned how the public is being deprived of access to\ninformation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Planning Board should have re-noticed the matter\nto include opening the gate.\nThe City Manager noted that noticing every possible outcome curbs open deliberations.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if the Police Department could provide a history and analysis\nabout the public safety components of the potential access point.\nThe City Manager responded the analysis would not be meaningful because the gate\nwas opened 20 years ago.\nMayor Gilmore stated the City does not have money to do Americans with Disabilities\nAct access; questioned whether the access would be desired 20 years from now; stated\nthe issue is preserving possibilities.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would like to separate the motion and address\nthe subdivision map application, then Condition 9.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether Councilmember Johnson is proposing approval\nof the tentative map without the condition, to which Councilmember Johnson responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing adjacent to Tilden Way would be\nsix feet and whether the adequacy of the height was ever discussed.\nThe Acting City Planner responded that the height of the fencing was not discussed;\ncondition of approval requires submittal of a plan as to how that edge is treated so the\nentrance is attractive.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 6, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the fencing could be raised, to which the\nActing City Planner replied in the affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding affordable housing, the\nActing City Planner stated affordable housing requirements were discussed in the staff\nreport and Planning Board meeting; an 11-14 unit project needs to provide two\naffordable homes; the property owner also owns two adjacent units that are already\nbuilt; the property owner has two options: dedicate the two lots from the subdivision for\naffordable housing or dedicate the two existing homes for affordable housing.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the zoning was discussed.\nThe Acting City Planner responded the site has been zoned R-2-PD for a long time; the\nPlanning Board did not take action on the zoning.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Council could approve the subdivision map and\ntake Condition 9 separately.\nThe City Attorney recommended that the Council address Condition 9 first and then\ntake action on the tentative map.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of taking Condition 9 out of the tentative\nsubdivision map.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the motion because\nof the need to preserve future land use possibilities consistent with the General Plan\nrequirement to provide pedestrian and bicycle access; she has no understanding\nwhether future flexibility is being eliminated; there should be a fuller community\ndiscussion about the security issues; she does not have enough information to support\nor oppose the motion.\nMayor Gilmore stated if the Council removes Condition 9, a future Council could want\nthe easement to put in a path; the only real difference is that the easement would\nprobably cost money whereas now it is free.\nThe Acting City Planner stated the land would have to be purchased from the property\nowner in the future, but right now the land would be included in the project.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated leaving Condition 9 is not voting for a public right-of-way,\nrather the option is left open for the future and would require a public hearing before any\ndecision is made to actually have the public right of way; questioned what the costs\nmight be to purchase the land later.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 7, "text": "Mayor Gilmore stated the underlying concern is if the Council removes the condition,\nsometime in the future Council will be talking about putting in the path and opening the\ngate; Condition 9 could be retained and another condition could be added that 80% of\nthe lots have to be occupied before the access is considered, which would relieve the\nanxiety of the gate being opened immediately and give future property owners an\nopportunity to weigh in on the matter.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated details should be flushed out; filling in blind spots would benefit\nthe discussion.\nThe City Manager stated data points are not going to be predictive of what the crime\nwould be; urged the Council to make a decision.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the access point would be for pedestrians and\nbicyclists to get to the Fruitvale BART station, to which the Acting City Planner\nresponded in the affirmative, stated hopefully, there would be more points of interest in\nthe future.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether staff is aware of Oakland's development plans.\nThe Acting City Planner stated there are plans for new residential development across\nthe Park Street Bridge, including improvements for bicycle and pedestrian access;\nnoted the Planning Board knew the residents did not like the idea of opening the gate,\nwhich is why additional language was added to the condition about the opportunity just\nbeing preserved for the future.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not think there would be a future need for\naccess; the Tilden Way walkway could be made wider and more accessible.\nMayor Gilmore stated the Council should be fiscally responsible and proactive in\nplanning the future; what development will occur across the estuary is not known, which\nis why Condition 9 should remain, however, she also understands homeowners wanting\nto feel secure; hopefully the decision is not regretted in the future; she would vote to\npass it.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice votes:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Johnson and Mayor Gilmore - 3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor\nBonta and Councilmember Tam - 2.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the Planning Board focused on bicycles and\nwhy attention was not given to the sidewalk on Tilden Way.\nThe Acting City Planner responded Public Works looked at Tilden Way before the\nmatter went to the Planning Board; the City is looking into funding to rebuild Fruitvale\nBridge as the lifeline bridge; widening Tilden Way and getting better access for\npedestrians and bicyclists is definitely a priority in the General Plan; taking land away\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 8, "text": "from plots 8, 9 and 10 for widening would require backyards of existing homes be\npurchased.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution approving the tentative map.\nVice Mayor Bonta seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Condition 7 and 10 should be discussed.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's request for clarification, the Acting City Planner stated\nthe property owner is okay with providing the two affordable units in the existing\nstructures.\nMayor Gilmore stated the condition gives the property owner an option, but the Council\ndoes not want to give the property owner an option and instead would make the two\naffordable units technically off-site.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated language should be added to Condition 10 regarding\nnoise impacts and the fence.\nThe City Attorney stated Condition 10 would read: \"improvement plan for the subdivision\nshall include a plan for the construction of an attractive fence or other feature along the\nTilden frontage of lots 8, 9 and 10 to minimize noise and security impacts on the\nneighborhood.'\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the condition could say the height of the fence would be\nincreased.\nMayor Gilmore stated the fence design would go through design review so that it is\nattractive and considers security and noise.\nThe Acting City Planner stated the new language would state the fencing would be\nattractive, address neighborhood security concerns, and come back for a future\nPlanning Board public hearing.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's concern, the Acting City Planner stated the\nproperty owner would have to come back for design review.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the language should read: \"may consider;\" walls might\necho and be louder.\nThe Acting City Planner stated the condition would be structured so it is clear there will\nbe discussion at the community level about the edge of the fencing.\nMayor Gilmore inquired what would happen to the rest of the fencing as lots are\ndeveloped.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 9, "text": "The Acting City Planner responded a development plan for the entire property is\nrequired; the City would review project issues up front.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous vote with modifications to\nConditions 7 and 10. Councilmember Johnson and Vice Mayor Bonta agreed to amend\nthe motion.\n(12-487) Public Hearing to Consider Final Passage of Ordinance Amending Section 30-\n4.9A of the Alameda Municipal Code Related to the C-C, Community Commercial Zone.\nContinued to October 16, 2012.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-488) The City Manager announced there is a special meeting of the City Council on\nOctober 30 to receive the report from the pension reform task force and receive input\nfrom the public regarding the City's future labor negotiations with Public Safety\nbargaining groups.\nMayor Gilmore requested a press release be issued.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the Task Force report addresses implications of\nthe State pension legislation, to which the city Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired if there would be a unanimously supported recommendation\nor multiple voices with different options.\nThe City Manager responded a menu of options would be presented; the group reached\nconsensus on the scope and depth of the financial gap.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated having a summary of the new pension reform impacts\nwould be helpful.\nThe City Manager stated said information would be included in the report.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-489) Councilmember Johnson discussed a pension system she heard about\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 10, "text": "recently.\n(12-490) Councilmember deHaan announced Walk and Roll would be tomorrow.\n(12-491) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Golf Commission,\nthe Public Art Commission, the Social Service Human Relations Board and the Youth\nAdvisory Commission.\nMayor Gilmore nominated Ray Gaul, Bill Schmitz, Timothy Scates, Jane Sullwold, and\nJefferey Wood for appointment to the Golf Commission; Sherman Lewis for\nappointment to the Public Art Commission; Jennifer Williams and Jennifer Watkinson for\nappointment to the Social Service Human Relations Board; and Kimberly N. Walter for\nappointment to the Youth Advisory Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:33 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\n10\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-10-02", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY--OCTOBER: 2, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:02 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nNote: Councilmember Johnson arrived at 6:05 p.m. and Vice Mayor Bonta\narrived at 6:17 p.m.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-468) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name of Case:\nKapler V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court Case No. HG11570933; Court of\nAppeal, 1st Appellate District Case No. A133001\n(12-469) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name\nof\nCase: Gallant V. City of Alameda, et al.; Superior Court Case No. RG11590505; Court\nof Appeal, 1st Appellate District Case No. A133777\n(12-470) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9) Name\nof\nCase: Doherty V. City of Alameda, et al.; United States District Court Case No. C-09-\n04961 EDL\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that regarding Kapler V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff;\nregarding Gallant V. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff; and regarding Doherty\nV. City of Alameda, direction was given to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:00 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\nOctober 2, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-10-02.pdf"}