{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- APRIL 2, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:05 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-121) Mayor Gilmore announced that the resolution and ordinance amending the\nCalifornia Public Employees System Contract [paragraph no. 13-140 & 13-140A would\nbe addressed after the resolutions of appointment [paragraph no. 13-139, 13-139A &\n13-139B].\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-122) Mayor Gilmore read a statement regarding the season of non-violence word of\nthe day: Giving.\n(13-123) Proclamation declaring May 2013 as Asian Pacific Heritage Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Benny Chin, Buena Vista\nMethodist Church.\n(13-124) Proclamation declaring March as Women in Military History Month.\nMayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Mildred Nolan, Navy Veteran.\nIn response to Vice-Mayor Ezzy-Ashcraft's request, Ms. Nolan briefly described her\nexperience in the Navy.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-125) Robert Sullwold, Alameda, submitted information and discussed pension costs\nand the pension reform bill.\nThe City Manager provided context on the pension reform bill.\nMr. Sullwold noted that he disagrees with the City Manager.\nMayor Gilmore urged Mr. Sullwold to participate when the Council discusses pension\nreform in the future.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 2, "text": "(13-126) Ken Peterson, Alameda, discussed the budget; expressed concern over debt.\n(13-127) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA), thanked the Fire\nDepartment for the quick response to the fire at Park Street and San Jose Avenue.\n(13-128) Jon Spangler, Alameda, encouraged everyone to attend the upcoming Meet\nYour Public Officials event.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the iManage Document Management Software Contract\n[paragraph no. 13-131], the resolution regarding Park Street Business Improvement\nArea [paragraph no. 13-137], and the resolution regarding the Webster Street Business\nImprovement Area [paragraph no. 13-138 were removed from the Consent Calendar\nfor discussion.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(*13-129) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on March 5, 2013.\nApproved.\n(*13-130) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,522,047.76.\n(13-131) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a\nContract in an Amount Not to Exceed $205,000 with Autonomy, a Hewlett Packard\nCompany, to Purchase it's iManage Document Management Software for the City's\nElectronic Records Management and Retention Program.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the three related contracts would be brought to Council\nat a later time; stated, in the past, contracts which should have been one single contract\nwere broken up to avoid Council approval; requested the contracts be briefly explained.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the contracts were mentioned in the report because\nthe contracts are related; there is no intention to divide contracts into pieces to fall under\nthe City Manager signing authority; the matter tonight is regarding Hewlett Packard\nAutonomy, which is a product being purchased off the shelf; the other contracts are for\nconsultants; one consultant, RCS Network Solutions, will design and prepare the\nprogram for $30,000; the other is for Innovative Computing Systems for approximately\n$36,000 to install the program on computers; that he would be happy to provide reports\non the Consent Calendar even though not required; the contracts and numbers were\nincluded to show the full cost of electronic records management.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 3, "text": "The City Manager stated staff's goal is to be transparent and ensure that Council sees\nthe entire scope of the project.\nMayor Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*13-132) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of a Bio-Diesel Pump Crane\nTruck in the Amount of $102,998 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute All\nNecessary Documents. Accepted.\n(*13-133) Recommendation to Authorize the Purchase of an Alternative Bio-Diesel\nTymco 600 Regenerative Air Sweeper in the Amount of $225,000 and Authorize the\nCity Manager to Execute All Necessary Documents. Accepted.\n(*13-134) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids to Remove and Replace the Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)\nChillers for City Hall and the Police Administration Building. Accepted.\n(*13-135) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for\nBids for Repair and Resurfacing of Certain Streets, Phase 32, No. P.W. 11-12-20.\nAccepted.\n(*13-136) Recommendation to Award a Consultant Contract in the Amount of $79,800\nto Schaaf & Wheeler to Update the Storm Drain Master Plan to Analyze Impacts\nAssociated With a 55-Inch Sea Level Rise and Allocate $8,000 for Contingencies.\nAccepted.\n(13-137) Recommendation to Approve the Park Street Business Improvement Area's\nAnnual Assessment Report; Resolution No. 14782, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy and\nAnnual Assessment on the Park Street Business Improvement Area of the City of\nAlameda for FY 2013-2014.\" Adotped; and Set a Public Hearing for May 7, 2013 to\nLevy an Annual Assessment on the Park Street Business Improvement Area.\nThe Community Development Director gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the PSBA work plan addresses district maintenance,\nincluding: the appearance of sidewalks and ground in gum; overflowing trash\nreceptacles, especially by Peet's and Starbucks; inquired about the matter and whether\nthere could be receptacles which sort recyclables from green trash or if garbage\nworkers sort after pick up.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, responded PSBA is working with Public Works to come up with a\nplan to replace the garbage cans; stated many times people place garbage on the rims\nand the garbage cans appear to be overflowing; Public Works has a pilot program to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 4, "text": "place double capacity plastic cans at Peet's and Starbucks; that he and Public Works\nhave been performing spot checks and have not seen the cans overflowing; the PSBA\nBoard recently discussed the possibility of having garbage, recycle and possibly\ncomposting; the matter comes down to covering costs, which cannot be done by PSBA;\nCity staff is looking into a possible grant; various solutions have been tried to address\nthe gum problem; unfortunately, every solution is labor intensive; a gum extractor\nmachine was purchased several years ago, which is time consuming and expensive;\npressure washing is being tested.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the PSBA and West Alameda Business Association\n(WABA) bylaws address action being taken by the board without a meeting; WABA's\nbylaws allow directors to act without a meeting, which PSBA might want to consider.\nMr. Ratto stated PSBA is rewriting its bylaws and will clarify taking action electronically.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated PSBA's budget has basically nothing set aside for\ndesign and economic revitalization; there should be some approach to address design\nand economic revitalization.\nMr. Ratto stated economic design and revitalization money is issued every year and any\nmoney identified as extra is spent by the Board on issues that have arisen; PSBA might\nhave design money to address the garbage and recycle can problem in the future.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what WABA needs to become more robust.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would abstain from voting on the WABA item\nbecause his home is next to Webster Street; inquired whether the issues could be\naddressed separately.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated although a question is being\nraised on the next agenda item, Council would vote on the items separately.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's inquiry, the Community Development\nDirector stated WABA would probably change its district boundary to include Alameda\nLanding during the next year, which will infuse some new vitality as well as revenues;\nthe economy has been picking up over the past year; many retailers are interested in\nlocating in Alameda; that she is optimistic the area will continue to grow and improve.\nPatricia Young, WABA, stated WABA does not have funds for an Executive Director; the\nboard is working on the issues raised and hopes to incorporate Alameda Landing;\nhowever, the businesses will have to vote to join the BIA; discussion with Catellus had\nbeen underway; WABA is trying to recruit businesses for the empty spaces within the\nWebster Street District; membership has increased almost 8% in the past year and half;\nWABA is reviewing options and working with City staff.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Ms. Young could keep the Council updated,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 5, "text": "to which Ms. Young responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the staff recommendation, including\nadoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(13-138) Recommendation to Approve the Webster Street Business Improvement\nArea's Annual Assessment Report; Resolution No. 14783, \"Resolution of Intention to\nLevy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area of the\nCity of Alameda for FY 2013-2014.\" Adopted; and Set a Public Hearing for May 7, 2013\nto Levy an Annual Assessment on the Webster Street Business Improvement Area.\nCouncilmember Daysog recused himself.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation, including adoption\nof the resolution.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvotes: Ayes: Councilmembers Chen, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-139) Resolution No. 14784, \"Appointing Dania Alvarez-Morroni as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.' Adopted;\n(13-139 A) Resolution No. 14785, \"Appointing Stanley Tang as a Member of the\nPlanning Board.\" Adopted; and\n(13-139 B) Resolution No. 14786, \"Appointing Michael Robles-Wong as a Member of\nthe Social Service Human Relations Board.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Certificates of\nAppointment to Ms. Alvarez-Morroni, Mr. Tang, and Mr. Robles-Wong.\n(13-140) Resolution No. 14787, \"Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to\nthe Contract Between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees'\nRetirement System and the City Council of the City of Alameda to Provide the Option for\nLocal Fire Members to Purchase Service Credit for Permanent Career Civilian Federal\nFirefighter or Permanent Career State Firefighter Service.\" Adopted; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 6, "text": "(13-140 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Contract Between the Board of\nAdministration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System and the City\nCouncil of the City of Alameda to Provide the Option for Local Fire Members to\nPurchase Service Credit for Permanent Career Civilian Federal Firefighter or\nPermanent Career State Firefighter Service. Introduced.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he was a little confused by the item; inquired whether\nthe provision would apply to firefighters who came from the Naval Air Station (NAS) and\nwhether the provision would allow federal service years to count towards retirement.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the NAS closed in 1996; the issue was addressed in\nthe 2011 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU); inquired why the matter took so long\nto arise.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the matter was negotiated; stated the firefighters\nhad to request including the amendment in the MOU, which was negotiated back in\n2011.\nThe City Manager stated the matter was one of many issues discussed for years which\nsat at loggerhead; the matter was finally resolved in 2011; the subject came up again\nand again in negotiations and just had not gone anywhere.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired about an exhibit amended December 31, 2012 which\nreferences the Housing Authority.\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded a previous PERS contract amendment\nremoved the Housing Authority; stated Section 11J has been added.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Council is only addressing Section 11J\naddressing public service credit for career federal/state firefighter service, to which the\nSenior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the matter was approved by the previous\nCouncil in the 2011 MOU, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the vote was unanimous, to which the Senior\nManagement Analyst responded that she did not know.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether the eligible 15 to 20 employees would have to\npurchase the service credit, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the\naffirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 7, "text": "Councilmember Chen inquired whether the City gained from the employees' experience\nserving the federal facility.\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative; stated the experience is\nthe same as the City hiring from another agency with similar firefighting skills.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's inquiry regarding the number of firefighters\nasking for the service buy back, the Senior Management Analyst stated the City\nestimates 15 to 20 firefighters will apply.\nIn response to Councilmember Chen's further inquiry, the Senior Management Analyst\nstated a number of firefighters came over at the time of Base closure in 1997 and\nfirefighters who came over a couple of years before Base closure might be eligible as\nwell.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether an equivalent federal requirement also applies\nto said employees.\nThe Senior Management Analyst responded the employees are not eligible for a federal\npension; stated upon leaving the NAS, contributions in the federal system had to be\ncashed out; noted the employees were civilian Firefighters not eligible for a military\npension either.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether PERS would be the employees' only retirement\nfund, to which the Senior Management Analyst responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager stated the City is not paying for the service credit and is just providing\nFirefighters with the opportunity to purchase service credit.\nExpressed concern over CalPERS not performing actuarial studies, which is a City\nCharter violation: Ken Peterson, Alameda.\nProvided background information on the provision: Jeff DelBono, International\nAssociation of Firefighters.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft requested an explanation of why the purchase amount varies.\nMr. DelBono responded that he based the amount off of Oakland Firefighters being\nquoted about $7,000 a year plus interest; stated the amount varies depending on the\ncost during the time the firefighters were working at the Base.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether there is window of time in which the employee has to\npurchase the rights or if the time is open ended, to which Mr. DelBono responded\npension reform requires employees to have submitted applications by January 1; stated\n15 to 20 employees submitted applications to retain the option; about three quarters\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 8, "text": "probably do not have the money to purchase the time right now and others are too\nyoung to want to purchase the time; only about 3 or 4 of members right now want to\npurchase time.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether those too young to retire can do it later.\nMr. DelBono responded in the affirmative; stated applications had to be submitted by\nJanuary 1 because of pension reform.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City submitted the request to CalPERS on January 30,\n2013; inquired how the action would dovetail with pension reform.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded that she does not believe pension reform would\naffect the action.\nThe Senior Management Analyst concurred with the Assistant City Manager; stated\nstaff had already begun the process and submitted documents for the amendment,\ntherefore, she does not believe pension reform would have any impact.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam stated honoring the MOU is important.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the action would bring everyone\nonto the same level playing field; having people who have worked for the City the same\namount of time, just in a different capacity, not being entitled to the same amount of\nretirement does not seem fair, which she believes is a reason the legislature passed the\nlaw.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would abstain in order to obtain more information\nprior to final passage.\nOn the call for the question, carried by the following voice vote - 4. Abstention:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nCouncilmember Chen moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote -\n4. Abstention: Councilmember Daysog - 1.\n(13-141) Public Hearing to Consider Resolution No. 14788, \"Certifying the Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) for the North Park Street Regulating Code (State\nClearinghouse #2011052058);\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 9, "text": "(13-141 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Various Sections of the Alameda\nMunicipal Code Contained in Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) Related to the\nNorth Park Street Planning Area. Introduced; and\n(13-141 B) Resolution No. 14789, \"Approving Citywide Design Manual Amendments.\n(This project regulates development within the area bounded by the Oakland-Alameda\nEstuary, Tilden Way, Lincoln Avenue, and Oak Street). Adopted.\n*\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft and Councilmember Tam left the dais at 8:14 p.m. and\nreturned at 8:16 p.m.\nThe City Planner gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the issue is not just height limit, but is also aesthetic; the\narea is the gateway to Alameda and is what visitors see coming across the Park Street\nbridge; the height limit is coming down from 100 feet to 60 feet; inquired why the old\nzoning allowed 100 feet.\nThe City Planner responded the height is really a reflection of changing attitudes; the\n1960 General Plan for Alameda has beautiful drawings, which are almost Jetson style\nshowing 10-story office buildings and shopping districts all the way down Park Street\nwith a bridge from the South Shore end of Park Street across to South San Francisco;\nthere was a totally different vision of what the people of Alameda thought Alameda\nshould be; throughout all of the East Bay, and probably California, the 1970s\nenvironmental movement, Save the Bay, the realization of environmental impacts and\nconstricting development completely changed attitudes about what is appropriate\ndevelopment, but the changing to zoning very often lags; Measure A immediately put a\nhalt to multi-types of development; completing the zoning has taken 6 years.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he understands the importance of economic\ndevelopment; the gateway district is a beginning to help generate sales tax that the City\nlost when car dealerships closed; he does not want Alameda to turn into a Bay Street\nlike Emeryville with 60 feet building on both sides of the street, which becomes a tunnel;\ninquired what safeguards are in place in the event developers want to build rows of 60\nfoot buildings along Park Street.\nThe City Planner responded one thing that does not change over time very often is\nparcel size; provided an example of large parcels in Jack London Square, which do not\nrequire accumulation of multiple properties to create a pad; stated one large parcel\nallows a big building; there are only a handful of sites to that would fit parking and\ntenants and banks requirements for a 60 foot building on Park Street; having a whole\nrow of 60 foot buildings down Park Street is highly unlikely because of lot patterns; the\neconomics on Park Street are not there; in the past 10 years, not one single developer\nhas proposed a 6 to 10 story building; the economics in the area do not support such\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 10, "text": "buildings; Measure A and the prohibition of multi-family has been a factor over the\nyears; questioned whether the City wants to have a 40 foot limit that would not allow a\nbuilding that looks as nice as the Masonic Lodge, which is beautifully designed and\nneeds to be 50 to 55 feet; stated the City has a manual on how to get projects\napproved; the Planning Board is not going to approve ugly buildings; design review in\nAlameda is rigid; Council can call projects for review; that he does not believe a\nfloodgate would be opened.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the intention is for North Park Street to be more pedestrian\noriented, with more retail shops to allow people to walk, shop and dine in Alameda;\ninquired what is the logic in building stories that go vertical instead of horizontal.\nThe City Planner responded the first floor facing Park Street would be pedestrian\nfriendly retail, which requires at least a 12 or 15 foot height, not 10 feet; stated to be\ntransit- and pedestrian-oriented, people live above the first floor and there might be\noffice use upstairs; the parcels are not deep enough to go horizontal; the only way to go\nis up; banks are going to require parking even if City does not; the parcel sizes are such\nthat there are very few options to have large 4 or 5 story buildings.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she appreciates the hours of work that went into the\nmatter since 2006; the City Planner headed in a direction that Council directed 6 years\nago because the area had problems; the City did not have any marketing interest and\nwas hearing that Alameda is not business friendly; the City thought providing form\nbased certainty would stimulate the economy; the City has had the 100 foot limit since\n1990; inquired whether an application for a 100 foot building has been received in the\n23 years.\nThe City Planner responded not to his knowledge.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether no one reaches the [height] limit due to the\n[parcel] area ratios and the marketability of the space not being what people need.\nThe City Planner responded there are a variety of factors; stated people with some\nfamiliarity of Alameda know the City is not going to approve a 10 story building on Park\nStreet even though the height limit is 100 feet; the proposed zoning regulations are an\neffort to stop sending a mixed signal regarding the 100 foot height limit; a 10 story\nbuilding is not desired on Park Street; the zoning sets standards and ensures staff and\nthe community are clear about what is desired for Park Street; then, the development\ncommunity and property owners might find it worth exploring the ideas outlined because\nmeeting the design manual standard allows a specific height; the City wants to have\none voice and be clear about what is desired and not desired.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about down zoning of the School District site; stated that\nshe appreciates having mitigation credits, such as requiring developers to provide open\nspace and helping assist with land purchases; Project Leaf and community organizers\nsuggested purchasing the School District site for a community garden or open space;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 11, "text": "there was suggestion that the organizers fundraise to help buy the property from the\nSchool District; inquired about the reaction to the suggestion.\nThe City Planner responded Project Leaf people are smart and understand the\nchallenges; raising money as a nonprofit neighborhood organization is hard; buying\nresidentially zoned property in Bay Area cities is very expensive; Project Leaf members\nunderstand the hurtles and the need to raise money; the City has been very clear that\nfunds are not available; the City has other major park efforts underway, like the Beltline,\nto create more open space; Project Leaf starting to generate revenue or resources\nmight create opportunities to partner with the City; during conversations with Project\nLeaf representatives, staff has suggested that the group reorient its thinking and\ncontinue to raise money to buy the School District site, but the City will not down zone\nthe property because down zoning is dangerous for the City; the School District giving\nthe property to Project Leaf or selling the property for a reduced price is an issue\nbetween the group and the District; staff also informed Project Leaf that another piece of\nproperty in the neighborhood might be a lot cheaper to purchase because it is zoned\nindustrial, has no active use, and has an owner who would love to sell the land;\nalthough the City does not currently have funds, plans include acquiring a piece of the\nland for Clement Avenue extension, which is a long term effort; a lot of work and energy\nwould be required, but a partnership to purchase the land is a potential to pursue.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she knows the matter is a subject for another day;\ninquired whether the School District has indicated its desires or plans for the site.\nThe City Planner responded staff has been working with the School District on a\nnumber of issues; stated that he believes the School District would like to sell the site;\nthe Alameda Housing Authority has funding for affordable housing and has expressed\ninterest in purchasing the property.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquire whether Park Street north of Lincoln Avenue has a\nminimum sidewalk width.\nThe City Planner responded the regulations address private property, not the public\nright of way, and assume the existing sidewalk on Park Street.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired what the minimum sidewalk width is for Park Street,\nto which the City Planner responded that he believes 12 feet.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she met with several Alameda Architectural\nPreservation Society (AAPS) members and Wedge neighborhood residents; one\nconcern raised was that buildings with zero setback limits prohibit increased pedestrian\nsafety or sidewalk cafes if the sidewalk is wide enough.\nThe City Planner stated that he believes the Park Street sidewalk is wide enough; some\nbusinesses have sidewalk cafes; however, more successful sidewalk cafes are actually\non side streets.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated another issue raised by the people she meet with was\nthe City of Santa Cruz Downtown Recovery Plan; Santa Cruz's maximum height limit is\n75 feet, but going above 50 feet requires meeting criteria, which is essentially design\nreview; inquired whether something similar was contemplated.\nThe City Planner responded something similar could be integrated into the plan; stated\nOakland has a similar approach with design review up to a certain height and taller\nbuildings require a conditional use permit; the requirements make it clear that special\ndesign is expected.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she would introduce the language that Santa Cruz\nuses as part of the discussion tonight; people want buildings sensitively designed and\nnot overwhelming; inquired whether the area is a historic district.\nThe City Planner responded the historic district ends at Lincoln Avenue; the area is not\npart of the Park Street historic district.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether doing a project on one of the historic\nbuildings on Park Street would go to the Historical Advisory Board, to which the City\nPlanner responded in the affirmative; stated if the building is one of the contributors, and\nmost are, design review would need to be done by staff or the Planning Board and a\ncertificate of approval would be needed from the Historical Advisory Board.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is excited about having residential units above\nbusinesses; the changes for the area of Park Street are really exciting; the public\ninvolvement has been good; the attempt to make the area pedestrian friendly is also an\nexciting element, which should be conducive in the zoning; ground floors should have a\nminimum height of 20 feet; building height issues can be worked through; there could be\nthree residential stories above the ground floor; zoning should be conducive to\neconomics, which have to be considered.\nMayor Gilmore stated Councilmember Daysog's point of view made her think in three\ndimensions; that she was thinking about the building appearance from the outside and\ntrying to picture a 60 foot building next to existing buildings; an interior ceiling height of\n15 or 20 feet should be reviewed; ground floor space should be welcoming to\npedestrians; volume tends to be more inviting; during her time on the Planning Board,\nsome big issues were office and professional uses going into what had residential\nneighborhoods, which required use permits; inquired whether the zoning permits offices,\nprofessionals spaces as a right.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mayor Gilmore's further inquiry, the City Planner stated the use is\npermitted; most mixed use areas have building that look residential, but are actually\nbusinesses; the zoning has been commercial manufacturing for over 50 and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 13, "text": "businesses, by right, have been going into buildings that look residential; outlined\ndifferences in the zoning areas; stated a key question of the Planning Board\nsubcommittee was how to continue to encourage businesses in mixed use areas; Park\nStreet is the City's best transit corridor, with a lot of buses and is a great place for small\nbusinesses.\nMayor Gilmore stated neighbors would be upset about the parking requirements when\nbusinesses in the mixed use zone would convert a residential building into a doctor's\noffice; inquired how the matter is addressed since office and professional uses are\nallowed as a right.\nThe City Planner responded allowing use by right does not trigger parking review;\nstated current regulations allow existing buildings designed as residences that may not\nhave parking to be converted to businesses.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested staff to outline the difficulties of mixed use\ndevelopments.\nThe City Manager stated mixed use development is difficult; doing either a straight\nresidential or straight commercial project is much easier; Alameda would like to see\nmixed use on Park Street, similar to the Starbucks building; a lot of accomplished\ndevelopers can do it; ground floor retail does not pay for development, the residential\nabove covers the cost.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired about lenders, to which the City Planner responded\nlenders do not like to deal with mixed use, which is what Alameda wants; only a limited\nnumber of lenders and developers would build mixed use projects; when looking at all\nBay Area cities, Alameda wants to be able to tell developers the area is a great place\nfor mixed use and getting through the development process will go quickly.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated there is a line item for grocery stores under retail uses;\ninquired why the mixed use and residential boxes are blank.\nThe City Planner responded the blanks are a typographic error; stated nothing should\nbe left blank; the not permitted box should be checked.\nSubmitted information and urged revisions be made to the ordinance: Patricia Paul,\nAlameda.\nUrged moving forward with the ordinance: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation.\nExpressed concern over the height limit and traffic; urged a 40 foot height limit: Nancy\nGordon, Alameda.\nUrged a 40 foot height limit; stated Clement should not be open to Tilden Way: Erik\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 14, "text": "Miller, Alameda.\nExpressed support for a 40 foot height limit: Janice Miles, Alameda.\nSubmitted and read an e-mail from Woody Minor: Dick Rutter, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the 40 foot limit; stated that he does not want Alameda to\nemulate Berkeley: David Baker, Alameda.\nExpressed support of the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS)\nrecommendations; encouraged adding green space requirements; provided background\ninformation on the Island High site and encouraged reconsidering placing housing on\nthe site: Melanie Wartenberg, Alameda resident and Project LEAF.\nEncouraged green and recreation uses be added: Kristoffer Koster, Alameda resident\nand Project LEAF.\nExpressed support of Project Leaf, the 40 foot height limit and a green use of the Island\nHigh site: Lear Blitzstein, Alameda.\nUrged setting building height at 40 feet and rare exceptions be allowed and urged Island\nHigh be used for green space: Doree Miles, Alameda\nUrged Alameda's character be maintined and a 40 foot height limit; expressed concern\nover vacancies: Gretchen Lipow, Alameda Citizens Task Force.\nUrged more work be done and a 40 foot height limit: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nExpressed concern over not having green space in the area; urged gateway projects be\nconsidered; urged 40 foot height limit: Tina Blaine, Alameda resident and Rythmix\nCultural Works.\nSubmitted a letter on behalf of the Alameda Unified School District teachers in support\nof the School District retaining the Island High site: Laura DiDonato, Alameda.\nEncouraged charm be enhanced in the wedge neighborhood: Nanette Burdick,\nAlameda.\nExpressed concern with use permit requirements and encouraged retail be required on\nthe first floor: Donna Layburn.\nExpressed support of the staff recommendation and encouraged moving forward and\nusing a similar model in other areas: Karen Bey, Alameda.\nDiscussed and showed pictures related to height limit; urged 60 feet not be allowed by\nright: Christopher Buckely, AAPS.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 15, "text": "(13-142) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of considering the recommendation\nto implement the Biological Opinion [paragraph no. 13-144 after 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n*\nEncouraged including a green area and the height limit be set at 40 foot with an\nexception to go higher: Trish Spencer, Alameda.\nUrged Island High be designated for green space: Joe DiDonato, Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore stated there is a lot of concern about the 60 foot height limit being\nallowed as a right; requested an explanation of the interplay between having a 60 foot\nheight limit as a right and design review; inquired what prevents the City from getting a\nsquare block building.\nThe City Planner responded the concept of by right is not being used correctly; stated\ntechnically, the City does not have anything by right because every building has to go\nthrough a discretionary design review process; the issue arises all the time with\nresidential construction; the City has a 30 foot height limit; large, unsightly designs\ncome in and people argue meeting the 30 foot height limit requires approval; staff\nexplains design review approval is needed, that findings must be made that the design\nis appropriate for the site, creates good transitions for the neighboring buildings and the\nhouse needs to be 25 feet to make the findings for design review even though the\nheight limit is 30 feet; staff would have to make findings to approve a 60 foot building;\nsomebody cannot just build a box because it meets the height limit.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether people might not come in with a 60 foot building\nproposal due to not wanting to waste time by being at the height limit.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated currently, developers come in and\nask what the City will approve; developers do not want to spend time and money going\nafter a wild goose chase if the project is not going to be approved; setting the height\nlimit at 40 feet sends the message that the City is not interested in any building over\nsaid height even if the project is beautifully designed.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the objective of sending a message would\nbe better realized by having guidelines in writing similar to Santa Cruz, which outline the\ncriteria to go beyond perhaps a 50 foot height limit; stated the counter staff are\nindividuals; there are variations; from her time on the Planning Board, she understood\npeople who do not hear what they want from one Planner, come back another day and\nask for another Planner.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 16, "text": "The City Planner responded the short answer is yes, which is the reason for the 100\npage design review manual; stated additional design guidelines can be added to clarify\nbuildings above 40 or 50 feet, but less than 60 feet, have additional design guidelines\nand standards that must be met.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is not shying away from the 60 foot height\nlimit, but understands the speakers concerns; provided examples of varying height limits\nworking and not working; stated many speakers expressed a desire for a 40 foot height\nlimit, but did the speakers review the design manual and examples of what can be\ndone; higher does not necessarily mean uglier; there are examples of ugly one and two\nstory buildings.\nCouncilmember Chen thanked the speakers; stated not a lot of developers have asked\nfor 60 feet, or even 50 feet; economic development and aesthetically pleasing structures\nare not mutually exclusive; there is a way to have economic vitality coupled with an\nappealing, charming structure in line with the rest of Alameda; residents in and around\nthe area are going to be directly impacted and should be heard; language could set the\nlimit at 40 feet and not discourage developers by offering exceptions if certain\nguidelines are followed; there should be an extra layer of scrutiny; projects could be\ntaken on a case by case basis; staff could come up with a solution to the open space\nproblem; the area needs open space.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated speakers mentioned the City and School District have\ndiscussed swapping the Island High site for Housing Authority use; requested an\nexplanation of the matter.\nThe City Manager stated discussions have been held over the past several years; staff\nhas been attempting to negotiate issues with the School District.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the discussion has included the Island High\nproperty, to which the City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated discussion\ninvolve a number of properties; the City would like to address each property individually\nand the School District wants a comprehensive solution for all the properties throughout\nthe City; the issue is money.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she understands the issue raised about green\nspace; that she has walked the area; there are some wonderful, creative ideas;\nhowever, money is needed and is the missing link; hopefully, the grant application,\nwhich the City did not help with a couple of years ago was not the last chance to obtain\nfunding; the City is facing a budget deficit and does not have extra cash; that she\nbelieves the City would be a more willing partner in grant application now; encouraged\nconsidering the Union Pacific area, which has potential of being acquired; stated a row\nof hedges or trees would buffer Tilden Way; Council should not get timid on the height\nlimit; she would urge 50 feet conditions to go to 60 feet because there are historic\nbuildings over 50 and 60 feet that add character; provided examples; stated that she\nwould like to include language from Santa Cruz and read an excerpt; stated speakers\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 17, "text": "seemed more concerned about ugly buildings, than 40 foot buildings; questioned\nwhether people like the appearance of the area; stated the City can do better; the\nmatter has been studied for years; the proposed ordinance moves forward with exciting\npotential.\n*\n(13-143) Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of continuing past 11:00 p.m.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbstention: Councilmember Tam - 1.\nCouncilmember Chen left the dais at 10:53 p.m. and returned at 10:55 p.m.\n*\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked the speakers; stated the City wants to improve the\nPark Street gateway; that he raised the issue of the Webster Street gateway back in\nDecember, 2006; East End residents want a gateway to be proud of; the zoning creates\nrules and guidelines under which property owners, developers or whomever have\nassurances as to how the gateway should be developed; the discussion is not just\namong residents and business owners, but requires understanding the market and what\nis feasible; Councilmembers listen to residents, as well as understand economics;\nmixed use projects are not easy; expressed appreciation for the materials, coloring and\nattention to detail in Berkeley projects; the design guidelines allow well designed mixed\nuse in the City of Alameda; everyone is concerned about preserving Alameda's historic\ncharacter; that he is okay with 4 to 5 story structures going up to 60 feet; the City\nPlanner explained nothing is allowed by right; that he supports language which is clear\nand provides guidance; that he understands the thought behind Santa Cruz's language;\nhowever, the language adds an element of uncertainty which the City wants to avoid;\nzoning gives clear direction as to what the community expects; there are ways to\naddress the 40 foot issue; 60 feet should be the goal; the design guidelines exist not\njust to create buildings, but to create beautiful buildings with ground floors conducive to\ncommercial and livable pedestrian oriented activity; inquired whether or not Park Street\nhas a minimum ground floor height.\nThe City Planner responded the design guidelines have a lot of guidance for the first\nfloor; stated one story buildings have a minimum height.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the guidelines emphasize that the ground floor should\nbe taken seriously.\nCouncilmember Tam expressed her appreciation of the speakers; stated everyone has\nbeen heard loud and clear regarding not wanting to see a canyon effect with 60 foot\nbuildings; the ordinance and design guidelines have specific safeguards to address the\nmatter; that she would be open to hearing additional safeguards; safeguards are\nincluded in the design guidelines; the ordinance has the ability to change over time to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 18, "text": "meet needs; zoning allows for an educational facility, a school garden or open space;\nthe issue is funding; that she does not have a sense of whether or not the School\nDistrict has heard directly from the community and teachers on building an educational\nfacility; the area is in need of open space and the City wants to work with the\ncommunity; maybe East Bay Regional Park District could purchase the property; the\nCity needs to move forward with a cohesive, consistent vision.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution certifying the EIR.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nMayor Gilmore expressed her appreciation of the speakers; stated the neighborhood\nhas a deficit of green space; the desired property is very complicated for a whole host of\nreasons involving the School District, the City and housing requirements; that she would\nbe interested in talking to residents about possibly partnering with the City on the\nrailroad property; the comments on height limits have been good; part of the issue is\neconomic development and part is what residents want; people wish there were more\nand different types of businesses; unfortunately, the economy is really bad and most\nbusinesses have not been in a position to expand or to strike out into new areas; all\ncities are seeking businesses willing to take the risk; getting a business of any kind to\ncome into the City is highly competitive; the City got VF Outdoor to locate here by\noffering incentives other cities could not match; although a height limit is not an\nincentive, anything which makes the City more competitive and easier to locate in\nshould be considered; design review is not easy in Alameda; the ordinance can change;\nthat she is not afraid of the 60 foot limit because she does not think a 60 foot box will be\nbuilt.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft read an excerpt from Exhibit 1A of the guidelines with the\nreason for the provisions; moving forward is important; that she would favor including\nsomething similar to Santa Cruz to assure the public that criteria are included;\nordinances can change; however, staff is busy and years have been spent on the\nproposed zoning, which should have staying power.\nCouncilmember Chen stated that he cannot support motion with the current language;\nexpressed his appreciation of staff's efforts; stated that wants to see the gateway district\nmove forward; however, the language should be changed to include a 40 foot height\nrestriction with exceptions; some developers might need 5 to 20 feet, which should be\naddressed on a case-by-case basis.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether Councilmember Chen is referring to the\nSanta Cruz language.\nCouncilmember Chen responded Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft mentioned 50 feet; that he\ncould live with 50 feet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the 60 foot limit could be retained and\nconditions could be included about what it would take to get to 60 feet.\nThe City Planner responded that the City should be very careful from a process stand\npoint and should not include vague ideas between first and second reading of the\nordinance; stated very specific could be addressed and come back for the second\nreading; however, he thinks the design guidelines could be amended; Council would\napprove the package tonight with direction; there is an addendum sheet because the\nPlanning Board had other changes for staff; the ordinance would not change; Council\ncould direct staff to include additional guidelines in the design manual for the top 20 feet\nover 40 feet.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the design guidelines would go back to the Planning\nBoard.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated the Planning Board would approve\nthe changes before approving any 60 foot buildings.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the ordinance would be changed [to indicate\nthe design manual include additional criteria to go above 50 feet].\nThe City Planner responded that he does not think an ordinance change is necessary;\nstated everyone has to review the design manual whether the building is 10, 20, 30, 40,\nor 50 feet; the design manual would be supplemented to the Santa Cruz design\nconcepts to indicate a tall building has to be beautiful; something special is required to\ngo over 40 feet; the Planning Board and staff would work on supplemental guidelines,\nwhich would not have to return to Council.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she is fine with allowing 50 feet without requiring\nextra criteria.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft is proposing the\nadditional criteria would only be required to go above 50 feet.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft responded additional language would be added to the design\nguidelines.\nThe City Planner stated the ordinance is not changing; Council is directing staff to work\nwith the Planning Board on additional design guidelines and the special architectural\nand design features that the City wants for 60 foot buildings.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the conversation with someone designing a 55 foot\nbuilding would address that something really special is required as outlined in the\ndesign guidelines.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 20, "text": "The City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated staff provides the design manual\nregardless of building height; the architect will have all the information; a subsection in\nthe design manual will provide additional guidelines to be aware of to go up to 60 feet;\n30 foot building proposals would ignore the section; the idea is to try to give some\nadditional design guidance for tall buildings.\nThe City Manager clarified buildings under 50 feet still go through design review; stated\nsomething special is required to go above a certain limit.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the matter would be addressed in the\nresolution adopting the Citywide design manual amendments.\nThe City Planner responded in the affirmative; stated Council has two more items to\nconsider: 1) the ordinance that sets a 60 foot height limit, which he does not\nrecommend changing; and 2) the design manual, which would be adopted with one\namendment creating additional guidelines addressing design features for buildings over\n50 feet.\nCouncilmember Tam expressed support for the approach outlined by the City Planner.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Gilmore clarified that the motion is to approve the ordinance\nwith the 60 foot limit.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice: Ayes:\nCouncilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nNoes:\nCouncilmember Chen - 1.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved adoption of the resolution approving the Citywide\nDesign Manual Amendments with amendment.\nThe City Planner clarified the amendment would be that staff would work with the\nPlanning Board to create additional design guidelines for buildings over 50 feet.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the amendment begins to address the canyon issue; top\nfloors could set back a little bit.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice:\nAyes: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 4. Noes:\nCouncilmember Chen - 1.\n***\nMayor Gilmore called a recess at 11:24 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 11:37 p.m.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 21, "text": "(13-144) Recommendation to Implement the Biological Opinion on the Proposed Naval\nAir Station Alameda Disposal and Reuse Project by Approving (1) a Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) by and between the United States of America, Acting by and\nthrough the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the City of Alameda for Funding\nof the Predator Management Plan; and (2) a Memorandum of Agreement by and\nbetween the United States of America, Acting by and through the Department of\nVeterans Affairs and the City of Alameda for Implementing Lighting Measures for the\nProtection of the Endangered Least Tern.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the MOU with US Fish and Wildlife Service pledges an\nadequate funding mechanism to ensure predator management activities are provided in\nperpetuity from March 25th through August 5th, the breeding season; however, February\n27th is also mentioned; the City also entered into an agreement with the US Department\nof Agriculture (USDA) to preform predatory management activities for the next three\nyears; inquired whether the City has funding responsibility in perpetuity, to which the\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft's further inquiry, the Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point stated the contract with USDA would come back to Council assuming it\ncould be continued.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the estimated annual cost is $24,500; a 30-day reserve is\nrequired; funds come from lease revenues, not the General Fund; inquired whether the\nfunds would come from lease revenue in perpetuity; and whether lease revenues would\nnot continue in perpetuity.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded a provision in the MOU\ncontemplates transfer of the obligation to a third party subject to a review by the US\nFish and Wildlife Service, which would want an endowment or some sort of agreement\nwith a private entity ensuring that predator management services would be provided in\nperpetuity; the City has to go through an additional negotiation, which US Fish and\nWildlife Service knows is likely to happen.\nCouncilmember Chen stated the two MOU's agree to predator management; inquired\nwhether $24,000 is the total cost of the management or just the City's portion.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded the amount is just the City's\nportion; stated the VA would have a contract to manage its parcel and the colony; the\nMOU ensures that the City would not have predators on its property that are creating a\npotential threat to the least terns.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 22, "text": "Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of the Memorandum of Understanding by\nand between the United States of America, Acting by and through the United States\nFish and Wildlife Service and the City of Alameda for Funding of the Predator\nManagement Plan.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Memorandum of Agreement by and\nbetween the United States of America, Acting by and through the Department of\nVeterans Affairs and the City of Alameda for Implementing Lighting Measures for the\nProtection of the Endangered Least Tern.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-145) The City Manager announced an upcoming special budget meeting on the\nCity's first two-year budget; encouraged anyone interested to attend; announced a\nCommercial Broker event to showcase real estate and development opportunities in\nAlameda; stated the Navy has confirmed that $10 million will be allocated to the\ncontinuing environmental cleanup of Alameda Point; the Navy has already spent $480\nmillion and the City is very glad to receive an allocation this fiscal year.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-146) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to the Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners.\nMayor Gilmore nominated Joy Pratt for reappointment to the Housing Authority Board of\nCommissioners.\n(13-147) Councilmember Chen encouraged people to listen to a talk show that he and a\nSan Leandro Councilmember would be participating in on April 3rd.\n(13-148) Mayor Gilmore stated the City is actively working with the School District to\nprovide cost effective feasible solutions to the pools; a joint subcommittee of the City\nand School Board met last week and received a proposal from City staff with cost\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-04-02", "page": 23, "text": "estimates on a three-phase approach to improving both Encinal and Emma Hood pool\nfacilities, which includes cosmetic improvements for Encinal and a two- phase process\nfor the Emma Hood facility improvements; the District and City staff are working on the\nmatter; the joint use agreement for the use and management of the pools is up for\nrenewal in June.\nADJOURNMENT\n(13-149) There being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at\n11:50 p.m. in memory of former Mayor Terry LeCroix.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nApril 2, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-04-02.pdf"}