{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-09-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, September 7, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:12 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-063) Approve the Minutes of the Special ARRA Meetings of July 13, 2011 and July 19, 2011.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\nNone.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-064) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of August 4, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan stated that Site OU-2C, a major contamination area, was discussed. The site\nhas been worked on in many phases. The RAB has set an alternative for Site D-6 which is $16M,\nstating that the Navy wants to go with the $5.8M. The issue is still being discussed and under\nevaluation.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-065) Provide Update on Status of Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Process and\nRedevelopment of Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that LBNL members visited the site\nand were given a guided tour and presentation. LBNL and consultants are currently\nreviewing site submittals. In Sept/Oct staff will compile one final response. LBNL stated\nthat they will review final submittals and make a recommendation to the UC Regents in\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-09-07", "page": 2, "text": "November. Regarding the larger redevelopment of Alameda Point, there are ongoing\nnegotiations with the Navy re: conveyance of property, continuing conversation with State\nLands re: Tidelands Trust Exchange. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point will\ncome back to the ARRA with updates in the next couple of months.\nMember deHaan asked to confirm the LBNL timeline. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint explained that the UC Regents meets every two months, if the timeline were to slip, or if they\nwere not ready to make a selection in November, the issue will slip to the next meeting in January.\nThe City Manager informed the Board that staff has informally heard that the selection may indeed\nslip to January, but reassured the Board that staff is completely ready and has not asked for any\nextension as others have. Alameda is on time, on budget, and will be ready for a November\nmeeting if it happens. Staff is urging a prompt decision.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan discussed that the Associated Community Action Plan (ACAP) will have their last\nmeeting next week. He recommends that community members view their audit, which was\nreleased to the public.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:19 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-09-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-10-05", "page": 1, "text": "80\nUNAPPROVED\nMINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, Ocotber 5, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:07 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\nChair Gilmore requested that the Pledge of Allegiance be added to the ARRA agenda.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-069) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular ARRA Meetings of September 7, 2011.\nMember deHaan moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member Johnson seconded\nthe motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-070) Approve Term Sheet between United States Navy and the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority for No-Cost Conveyance of Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point summarized the Term Sheet.\nPursue no-cost\nconveyance for LBNL, Navy Comprehensive conveyance strategy for entire base - discussed the\nmajor terms. Next steps to negotiate amendment to existing economic development conveyance\nmemorandum of agreement bring back to ARRA for approval.\nThe Acting City Attorney asked the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point to explain the\nEnvironmental Review of the term sheet. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point explained\nthat Alameda Point does not constitute a project under CEQA, therefore the Board is able to\napprove the term sheet without conducting additional environmental review.\nSpeaker: Diane Lichtenstein, HOMES, congratulated staff on a job well done after 14 years. Ms.\nLichtenstein discussed hope for the housing plan to move ahead, and hopefully with LBNL at the\nPoint.\nRegarding the enforcement provision of the market rate residential, Chair Gilmore requested\nconfirmation that the City will not have to pay the $50,000 fee per unit to the Navy. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative.\nVice Chair Bonta reemphasized that the Navy will maintain their obligation to clean up the\nproperty. The City Manager also reiterated that the City has incurred no environmental liability.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-10-05", "page": 2, "text": "81\nMember Tam discussed the City's other obligation to provide work-force and affordable housing.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that since staff has been\nreceiving a lot of inquiries regarding remediation, there will be a presentation from the\nEnvironmental Consultant, Peter Russell, at the November ARRA meeting.\nChair Gilmore stated that, in addition to the no-cost conveyance, the City gets control over the\nland. This is a valuable opportunity to develop more long term leases because we can provide\ntenants with certainty.\nMember deHaan recognized and thanked the members of the BRAG and other numerous\ncommunity organizations over the past 15 years. Chair Gilmore joined Member deHaan in\nrecognizing the community organizations that brought us to this point.\nMember Bonta moved to approve the Term Sheet. Member Tam seconded the motion. On\nthe call for the question, the motion carried by a roll call vote:\nMember deHaan - Aye, Member Johnson - Aye, Member Tam - Aye, Vice Chair Bonta -\nAye, Chair Gilmore - Aye. Ayes: 5. Noes: 0. Abstentions: 0\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-071) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of September 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan introduced Richard Banger, RAB member, who was present in the in audience.\nMr. Banger compiled a great amount of information on the history and activity regarding the\nremediation of Alameda Point on his website: www.alamedapointenvironmentalreport.com\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point added that, with Mr. Banger's help, key information\nabout remediation will be included on the City's website. Staff is also working with the\nEnvironmental Consultant, Peter Russell, to provide a less technical, shorter executive summary,\nbut have technical minutes still available.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nCarol Gottstein, Alameda citizen, spoke about the base cleanup and informed the public about the\nrepository at City Hall West which includes a large amount of information regarding the Alameda\nPoint remediation. Ms. Gottstein recently joined the RAB and encouraged others to join or attend\nthe RAB meetings.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nThe City Manager stated that staff and the Council owes a debt of gratitude to Jennifer Ott (Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point) for all her hard work in bringing us to this point. Vice Chair\nBonta thanked Ms. Ott publicly, commending her on the great work and that the Board is proud of\nthe fantastic results. Chair Gilmore thanked Ms. Ott for staying the course and working through\nmany years of frustration. Member Johnson thanked the attorneys for a team effort.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-10-05", "page": 3, "text": "82\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nSeptember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-10-05.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, November 2, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:32 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-073) Approve the Minutes of the Special Meetings of September 20, 2011 and the Special\nand Regular Meetings of October 5, 2011.\n(*11-074) Approve a 47-Year Legally Binding Agreement with Alameda Point Collaborative for\nBuildings 802, 803, 806, 809, 810, 811 and 812 (30 Units of Housing) and Authorize the Executive\nDirector to Execute the Agreement and any Related Documents.\nChair Gilmore pulled Item 3-A (minutes) to make a correction. Member Tam moved for\napproval of the balance of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the motion,\nwhich carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMember Tam moved for approval of Item 3-A with the corrections. Vice Chair Bonta\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. (Note: Chair Gilmore and\nMember Johnson abstained from approving the Minutes of Sept. 20, as they were not\npresent at that meeting). [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk\npreceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-075) Presentation on Status Report of Environmental Conditions of the Alameda Point\nSite.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point introduced the Environmental Consultant of the\nAlameda Point Project, Peter Russell, Russell Resources. Dr. Russell provided a powerpoint\npresentation on the status of the remediation and environmental issues of Alameda Point.\nDr. Russell's remediation experience includes numerous sites: Fort Ord, Tustin Air Station, Benicia\nArsenal, Mission Bay clean up, and the Southern and Union Pacific rail yards in Sacramento.\nMember deHaan commended Dr. Russell and the RAB for all their efforts in the environmental\nprogram of Alameda Point.\nSpeakers: Dale Smith, Community Chair of RAB and member for 10+ years. Ms. Smith discussed\nsoil issues not being addressed and CERCLA sites that are still of concern at Alameda Point.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 2, "text": "Chair Gilmore thanked Dr. Russell and members of the RAB for their technical expertise and\ndiligence over the decade and more.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(11-076) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of October 6, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan echoed the statements from Dr. Russell's presentation and reminded the public\nthat the remediation is ongoing, and that a vast majority of property will be given to the ARRA with\ncertain restrictions.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:12 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 3, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nComments by Dale Smith, Alameda Point Restoration Advisory Board Community Co-Chair\n33:49\nThe residential standards are for groundwater only, and they\nAt Alameda Point, cleanup to residential standards means\nare not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,\nthat the health risk and health hazard from both soil and\ncadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil that is\ngroundwater (combined) are health-protective for single-\nnot being addressed.\nfamily residential land use; which is the most stringent land-\nuse standard. This principle applies to both the CERCLA\n(Full Comment: The talk of residential standards, when I talk\nand Petroleum Programs. Accordingly, the concentrations of\nto community members, they seem to get confused because\ntoxic metals in soil are explicitly considered by the Navy\nthe residential standards are for groundwater only, and they\nand the environmental regulatory agencies in deciding\nare not for soil. So the soil has high levels of lead, mercury,\nwhether soil remediation is needed to allow residential land\ncadmium, vanadium, and other toxic metals in the soil, and\nuse and, if so, the type and extent of that remediation.\nthat is not being addressed as far as we can tell.)\n34:14\nSlide 13 represents the CERCLA sites only. There are\nContamination in soil and groundwater at Alameda Point is\npetroleum sites that move in and out of CERCLA. One\naddressed by either the CERCLA or Petroleum Program,\nmonth they'l be in, and the next month they'l be out. For\nwhichever appears to be most appropriate. For example, a\nexample, the plume under Kollmann Circle originally was in\nsite with petroleum contamination is typically managed\nthe petroleum site, got put in the CERCLA site.\nunder the Petroleum Program, unless non-petroleum\ncontamination also is present. Occasionally, management of\n(Full Comment: The graphs in the document, according to\na particular site will transfer from one program to another\nthe EPA representative, represent the CERCLA sites only,\nduring the course of investigation and remedial decision\nand I don't know if you changed those or you basically used\nmaking. For example, a site may move to the CERCLA\nthose graphs. You know the tall Yeah,\nso\nthose\nare\nProgram if contamination by a CERCLA substance is found\nCERCLA sites only, and there are petroleum sites that move\nat a Petroleum Program site. The goals for protection of\nin and out of CERCLA. They do a little hula dance. One\nhuman health and the environment are the same with both\nmonth they'll be in, and the next month they'll be out. So\nprograms.\nthere are sites that are still of concern, such as the plume\nunder Kollmann Circle, which originally was in the\npetroleum site, but then because of problems in Bayport, it\ngot put in the CERCLA site. So just bear that in mind. As I\nsaid, the soil is not being remediated.)\n35:09\nAccording to the presentation, \"cleanup\" means active\nThis comment primarily applies to cleanup of groundwater\nPage 1 of 1\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 4, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nremediation. However, the cleanup is going on for much\ncontamination. The remediation of many Alameda Point\nlonger than that. For example, the RAB had a presentation\ngroundwater contamination sites follows two principal\non one site (groundwater at OU-2B), where the cleanup was\nsteps. The first is an initial phase, during which the\ngoing to take 22 to 35 years, and there'll be severe\ncontamination, especially the source area, is treated, for\nrestrictions on the use of that site.\nexample by injection of chemicals or by heating. The\nsecond phase typically consists of periodic groundwater\n(Full Comment: Cleanup as defined in the presentation, as I\nsampling to monitor progress of natural processes in further\nread it or I hear it, means the active remediation done by the\nreducing contamination concentrations. The first phase often\nmilitary, meaning trucks and things are out there. Scoops are\ntakes three years or less. The second phase lasts until clean-\ndigging up dirt. Otherwise the cleanup is going on for much\nup goals are reached. The commenter is correct in that the\nlonger than that. We had a presentation on one site two\nsecond phase can last for several decades, as in the example\nmonths ago where the cleanup was going to take 22 to 35\nof Operable Unit 2B (OU-2B).\nyears, and there'll be severe restrictions on the use of that\nsite. So bear that in mind.)\nDuring the second phase, land-use restrictions may be\napplied to protect monitoring wells and to prevent use of the\ngroundwater. Depending on the type of groundwater\ncontamination, land-use restrictions may also require that\nbuilding designs include vapor barriers, special ventilation,\netc. to safeguard public health. Land-use restrictions during\nthe second phase typically do not preclude most uses of the\nsite. Thus, \"severe restrictions\" on land use typically apply\nonly to the first few years of cleanup.\n35:44\nQuite a bit of money is spent on cleanup using innovative\nCERCLA requires that clean-up decision making evaluate\ntechnologies. But the Navy is using experimental\nthe extent to which each remedial alterative under\ntechnologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of\nconsideration reduces the amount, toxicity, or mobility of\nmoney, so the Navy is able to make presentations to\ncontaminants through treatment. This statutory preference\nscientific boards.\nimplies that innovative technologies sometimes will be\nselected as the preferred clean-up alternative.\n(Full Comment: One of the RAB's concerns has been that\nthere has been quite a bit of money spent on cleanup using\nSometimes it is unclear whether a promising emerging\ninnovative technologies. But they' re using experimental\ntechnology will be effective under conditions found at\nPage 2 of 2\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 5, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\ntechnologies, which eventually don't work, and cost a lot of\nAlameda Point. In such cases, a pilot test (a form of\nmoney. So, but they, the Navy then is able to make\nexperiment) typically is conducted to evaluate how well the\npresentations to scientific boards saying that they tried this\ntechnology would work. A pilot test of in-situ thermal\ntechnology and it did not work.)\ntreatment to treat groundwater was tried at OU-2C and\nfound to be very cost-effective. Alternatively, a pilot test of\nnano-zerovalent-iron injection was tried at OU-2B and\nfound not to be effective. In both cases, the Navy and the\nenvironmental regulatory agencies unanimously agreed the\npilot testing (experimenting) was a prudent way to evaluate\nthe promising technology.\nThe principal instance where experimentation with\ntechnologies has occurred at Alameda Point is regarding\ngroundwater in another area of OU-2B. In this case, a\nuniversity and an EPA national laboratory approached the\nNavy for permission to conduct an experiment on\ngroundwater contamination. The experiment was primarily\nfunded externally, and the information obtained by the\nproject has improved clean-up decision making for OU-2B\ngroundwater.\n36:16\nAn \"active cleanup\" site on Slide 13 means a site for which\nThe \"Active Cleanup\" column in the graph on Slide 13\nthe regulators have signed off on site characterization and\nincludes sites which have completed their RODs and design\nremedial investigation, and is to move on to Proposed Plans,\nor implementation of the active remediation is in progress.\nRODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of sites in that category\nSites that are in the Proposed Plan or draft ROD stages are\ndon't have those in place yet, but they're put in the active\ncategorized on Slide 13 as \"Under Investigation\" CERCLA\ncleanup column anyway.\nrequires that remedial activities in the field begin within\nfifteen months of completing the ROD.\n(Full Comment: So active cleanup on that slide show means\nanything that has moved to the point where the regulators\nThe distinctions the comment focuses on will be explained\nhave signed off on site characterization and remedial\nmore explicitly on future versions of this slide.\ninvestigation, and now and has moved into a place where\nPage 3 of 3\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 6, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nthere are Proposed Plans, RODs, and Work Plans. So a lot of\nit doesn't have those in place yet, but they're put in the\nactive cleanup column.)\n36:46\nThe presentation (Slide 15) indicated portions of the\nThe IR Site boundaries on Slide 15 accurately reflect the\nNorthwest Territories are white (outside of IR Sites). But\nBCT's current understanding of the extent of radium in soil\nmost of these areas have recently been found to have radium\nat Northwest Territories. Within the last few years, the\ncontamination in soil. There is no plan for remediation of\nboundaries of the site in the area the comment references\nthis contamination.\n(IR Site 32) were expanded to account for low-level radium\ncontamination in soil extending over a greater area than was\n(Full Comment: The map showed the Northwest Territories\noriginally recognized. The Navy is currently completing an\nto be white, but they have recently been found to be covered\nextensive radiological survey of soil in this area. The\nwith radium to a depth of a half foot to a foot and a half, as I\npreliminary results from this investigation indicate that the\nrecall, in most of it. And there has been no plan as to how\nextent of radium in soil does not extend beyond the current\nthat's going to be remediated, as far as we know.)\nIR Site boundaries (into the white areas shown on Slide 15).\n37:09\nNatural attenuation hasn't occurred for 60 years. Why expect\nNatural attenuation consists of a variety of natural processes\nit to occur in the next five or ten years?\nthat reduce contaminant concentrations over time, usually\nrelatively slowly: biochemical degradation, dispersion,\n(Full Comment: And one of, George Humphries, who is my\nvolatilization, etc. These are commonly effective in\ncohort in this battle, likes to point out that natural attenuation\nreducing contaminant concentrations to remedial goals after\nhasn't occurred for 60 years. Why do you think it's going to\nthe initial active-cleanup phase.\noccur in the next five or ten years?)\nA fundamental component of the monitored natural\nattenuation part of a clean-up alternative is ongoing\ngroundwater sampling and analysis to verify that\ncontaminant concentrations drop as expected. If the levels\ndo not drop, CERCLA requires that the ROD be changed to\nensure clean-up goals are achieved.\nMore technical response: Two factors support the\nexpectation that natural attenuation will work well after\nactive remediation.\nPage 4 of 4\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 7, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\nFirst, underground bacteria and other microbes degrade\nmany contaminants, often an important component of\nnatural attenuation. However, initial site conditions may\ninclude contaminant levels that are so high that they are\ntoxic to the very microorganisms that, with more dilute\nconcentrations, would readily consume the contamination as\nfood. Thus, following an initial phase of active cleanup of\nthe higher concentration zones, natural attenuation can\nproceed more effectively.\nSecond, with initial high contaminant concentrations, the\neffect of natural attenuation often is not discernible. This is\nbecause of the inherent variability of sampling and analysis.\nA simple example illustrates this point. With an initial\ncontaminant concentration of 10,000 micrograms per liter\n(ug/L) and an inherent sampling variability of plus or minus\nten percent, duplicate sampling and analysis of the same\ngroundwater could yield analytical results anywhere\nbetween 9,000 ug/L and 11,000 ug/L. Say for discussion\npurposes, that natural attenuation reduces the contaminant\nconcentration by 10 ug/L each year. This rate of natural\nattenuation would be difficult to detect in a reasonable\nperiod of time by sampling. On the other hand, after an\ninitial phase of active remediation that reduces contaminant\nlevels, to say 300 ug/L, then analysis of duplicate samples\nwould yield results between 330 ug/L and 270 ug/L (+/-\n10%). Now, natural attenuation at a rate of 10 ug/L would\nbe both meaningful and discernible by sampling and\nanalysis.\n37:25\nPlanting trees will not be allowed. Gardening and fruit\nRestrictions on digging are used sparingly at Alameda\nPage 5 of 5\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-11-02", "page": 8, "text": "Response to Comments on Status Update for the ARRA\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting - November 2, 2011\nTime\nComment\nMarker\nResponse\ngrowing will be allowed, but digging a hole in the soil will\nPoint: in only three instances.\nnot.\nFirst, the Marsh Crust Ordinance restricts digging below the\n(Full Comment: And then to answer, I think, your question\nThreshold Depth, unless a permit is obtained first.\nabout planting trees: no, you will not be able to plant trees.\nYou'll be able to plant You'l be able to have a garden,\nSecond, soil cleanup at North Housing (IR Site 25) was\nand you' 'll be able to grow fruit, but you will not be able to\nconducted in landscaped areas, but not under buildings or\ndig a hole in the soil.)\npavement. Accordingly, major site work is restricted\nwithout first obtaining approval from the BCT.\nAdditionally, digging deeper than four feet below ground\nsurface at North Housing is prohibited without approval\nfrom the BCT. These restrictions may affect tree planting. In\nany case, BCT approval would be granted provided digging\nwere conducted while following a site management plan\nthat appropriately manages potential encounters with\ncontaminated soil.\nThird, at Todd Shipyards (IR Site 28), a non-residential\narea, digging deeper than two feet below ground surface is\nrestricted without first obtaining approval from the BCT.\nPage 6 of 6\nNovember 7, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-11-02.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-12-07", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, December 7, 2011\nThe meeting convened at 7:21 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*11-081) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of November 2, 2011.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Vice Chair Bonta seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-082) Presentation on Status of Disposition and Development Strategy for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point gave a power point presentation summarizing the\nnext steps for moving forward with the no cost reconveyance and development strategy for\nAlameda Point. Staff is providing the update to the Board before moving into the next phase of\nmaking recommendations. The summary focused on entitlement, transportation infrastructure,\nsolicitation and transaction.\nSpeakers: Carol Gottstein discussed maximizing the land value of Alameda Point, specifically\nBuilding 94, Chapel.\nChair Gilmore stated accountability issues are a downside to Phased Development. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point explained the key is to have really good design up front, and\nguiding documents that dictate how larger engineering and structure will work globally, so that the\ndesign is solid. There is concern about different developers doing backbone infrastructure for small\npieces. Having a uniform developer for larger, 100- acre parcels, would narrow accountability\nissues with fewer people.\nMember Tam discussed concerns about funding of predevelopment costs, backbone\ninfrastructure, and that the days of tax increment bond funding may not be available because of\nthe elimination of redevelopment. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point remains positive\nthat redevelopment will continue, and tax increment bonds will definitely be part of the plan. Staff\nwill have more information on potential funding sources to present to the Board at a future meeting.\nMember deHaan inquired where funding for predevelopment can be derived. The Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point discussed the two sides to the equation - cost side and revenue side.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-12-07", "page": 2, "text": "With reasonable costs, a developer can provide ideas to test assumptions. ARRA has a fund\nbalance, with a certain amount spent on planning. Options will be explored to find ways to\nleverage for upfront costs. Staff is exploring other sources of low cost capital with contingencies\nbuilt into the costs, with the same analysis used for other options.\nVice Chair Bonta inquired about the developer role as an advisor to ARRA. The Chief Operating\nOfficer - Alameda Point explained that ARRA would be the property owner and maintain control\nover entitlement process. With the understanding that ARRA is not a developer, put out an RFQ\nfor a development advisor, with a recommendation that the advisor actually be a developer with\nexperience working on large-scale projects, not just a consultant. In this advisor role, the\ndeveloper would actually work for the ARRA, are paid a monthly fee, but their contract can be\nterminated by the ARRA. The advantage from a transaction standpoint is that it would be a simple\ncontract; the advisor has no actual rights to development or land. The concept is that the ARRA\nmaintain control, work in a partnership, but ARRA would be the leader. Vice Chair Bonta inquired\nif there are any examples of that type of partnership. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda\nPoint stated that Hamilton AFB is a similar example. Hamilton hired a team of advisors, which\nincluded attorneys and economic consultants who planned and entitled all of Hamilton. They did\nan RFQ with developers and negotiated purchase and sale, but had entitlements all upfront.\nMember Johnson expressed concern about handling the most difficult parcels or areas that will\ntake longer to clean up. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed starting up efforts\nand creating value will make the property more valuable. Less money is taken out of the project by\na master developer, which leaves more money in the project for development itself.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point informed the Board that staff would be coming back\nto the ARRA with an update in February.\n(11-083) Presentation on the Status of the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab Second Campus\nProcess.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point provided an oral update on the LBNL Second\nCampus process. LBNL announced that they postponed their selection decision to early 2012.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated that it is staff's supposition that LBNL has\nmade a selection, but they are making sure the DOE and UC Regents are on the same page and\npolicy makers are on board.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\nNone.\n6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\n7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2011-12-07", "page": 3, "text": "9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nMember deHaan gave a brief report on the December 1 RAB meeting. The main issue was the\nRAB's plan for ongoing years, specifically the schedule and frequency of meetings. The Navy\nproposed to meet on a quarterly basis to cut back on operations costs. Various options are still\nbeing explored, including teleconferencing capabilities. The RAB elected Dale Smith as Co-chair\nand Carol Gottstein as Vice Co-chair.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:13 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nNovember 2, 2011", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2011-12-07.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nWEDNESDAY, January 4, 2012\nThe meeting convened at 7:10 p.m. with Chair Gilmore presiding.\n1. ROLL CALL\nPresent:\nBoard Members Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Chair\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\n2. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\n(12-001) Cara Kuhlman, Alameda, discussed starting dialogue with the ARRA to open a\ncommunity sailing center program at Alameda Point.\n3. CONSENT CALENDAR\n(*12-002) Approve the Minutes of the Special and Regular Meetings of December 7, 2011.\n(*12-003) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with\nRussell Resources for Environmental Consulting Services for Alameda Point Extending the Term\nfor 12 Months and Adding $165,000 to the Budget.\n(*12-004) Authorize the Executive Director to Execute an Amendment to an Agreement with\nCarlson, Barbee & Gibson for Civil Engineering and Surveying Consulting Services for Alameda\nPoint Extending the Term for 24 Months and Adding $74,400 to the Budget.\nMember Tam moved for approval of the Consent Calendar. Member deHaan seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number.]\n4.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-005) Award Contract in the Amount of $225,000 to Keyser Marston Associates to Prepare an\nEconomic Development Strategy for Alameda Point.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the Office of Economic Adjustment\n$225,000 award to the ARRA to conduct economic development strategy.\nMember Johnson expressed concern that any economic strategy or plan may be irrelevant\nbecause of the elimination of the redevelopment agencies. The Chief Operating Officer -\nAlameda Point explained that it is even more important to have a strategy in place and be\nprepared to attract industrial and commercial users that can help bring in the infrastructure.\nMember Tam inquired if there will be an increased dependency on private funds because of the\nloss of tax increment funding. Tim Kelly, Keyser Marston, stated that there are lots of opportunity\nfor growth and enhancement with existing tenants. He discussed other financing tools available,\nincluding Infrastructure Financing Districts and Community Facilities Districts. Mr. Kelly explained\nthat these financing tools have to be packaged in phases so it can be managed and delivered.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "Member deHaan expressed concern about how to address the community process. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point explained that there was feedback from the community that\nthere is a bit of fatigue on community meetings. The focus now is to engage the tenants. The\nChief Operating Officer - Alameda Point agreed with Member deHaan that the Economic\nDevelopment Commission and other formal bodies should be engaged.\nVice Chair Bonta moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(12-006) Approve Amendment No. 2 to the Memorandum of Agreement between the Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority and the United States Navy for the Economic Development\nConveyance of Portions of the Former Naval Air Station Alameda.\nChair Gilmore stated that although the No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance is\novershadowed by the redevelopment news, it is still amazing and exciting news. The Chief\nOperating Officer - Alameda Point agreed and provided a summary of events. The ARRA\napproved a term sheet with the Navy on October 5, 2011. The term sheet contemplated a no-cost\nconveyance of Alameda Point from the Navy to the ARRA consistent with the 1996 Reuse Plan.\nThe Term Sheet became the final amendment to the existing 2000 Memorandum of Agreement\nwith the Navy. The Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point discussed the changes, including the\nconveyance schedule, the enforcement mechanism, use of proceeds, and the addition of\nsubmerged lands. The conveyance schedule contemplates a vast majority of the property coming\nto the ARRA by the end of 2012.\nChair Gilmore thanked staff for working tirelessly and effortlessly over the years to make the No-\nCost Economic Development Conveyance happen.\nProponent: Helen Sause, Housing Opportunities Make Economic Sense (HOMES).\nMember Tam moved for approval of the staff recommendation. Member Johnson\nseconded the motion. Chair Gilmore requested a roll-call vote be conducted: Vice Chair\nBonta - aye, Member deHaan - aye, Member Johnson - aye, Member Tam - aye, Chair\nGilmore - aye. Ayes - 5, Abstentions - 0, Noes - 0.\n5.\nORAL REPORTS\n(12-007) Oral Report from Member deHaan, Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) Representative -\nHighlights of December 1, 2011 RAB Meetings.\nMember deHaan stated that he provided the 12/1 update at the December ARRA meeting and\nthat the RAB will not meet again until March. It is still being evaluated and discussed if RAB\nmeetings will be held on a quarterly basis.\n6.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA (PUBLIC COMMENT)\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "7.\nEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMMUNICATIONS\nThe Executive Director re-emphasized the news of the ARRA receiving portions of Alameda Point\nat a No-Cost Conveyance.\n8.\nREFERRALS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n9.\nCOMMUNICATIONS FROM THE GOVERNING BODY\nNone.\n10. ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:49 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nIrma Glidden\nARRA Secretary\nRegular Meeting\nARRA\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--6:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor\nGilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-015) Conference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Human\nResources Director and Masa Shiohira; Employee Organizations: Management and\nConfidential Employees Association (MCEA), Alameda City Employees Association\n(ACEA), International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), and Police Officers\nNon-Sworn (PANS).\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that the labor negotiators provided the status of negotiations with four\nbargaining units: IBEW, ACEA, PANs, and MCEA.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING\nAUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS (HABOC) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012- -7:02 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:51 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Commissioners\nAllen,\nBonta,\ndeHaan, Johnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 6.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(12-017 CC) Resolution No. 14634, \"(1) Determining It Will Serve as a Successor\nAgency to the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (\"CIC\"); (2)\nElecting Not to Retain the Housing Assets and Functions Previously Performed by the\nCIC; (3) Authorizing Assumption by the Housing Authority of the City of Alameda\n(\"Housing Authority\") of the Rights, Powers, Assets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations\nAssociated with the Housing Activities of the CIC; and (4) Authorizing the City Manager\nto Enter Into an Agreement with the Housing Authority to Fund Costs Associated with\nthe Transferred Housing Activities.\" Adopted; and\n(12-001 A HABOC) Resolution No. 836, \"(1) Agreeing to Assume the Rights, Powers,\nAssets, Liabilities, Duties, and Obligations Associated with the Housing Activities of the\nCommunity Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda; and (2) Authorizing the\nExecutive Director to Enter Into an Agreement with the City of Alameda to Fund Costs\nAssociated with the Transferred Housing Activities.\" Adopted.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated redevelopment agencies would cease to exist on February\n1st, but agreements for 400 redevelopment agencies would not suddenly come into\nexistence on February 2nd\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated agreements would exist\nbecause of each agency's enforceable obligation schedule.\nIn response to Mayor/Chair Gilmore's inquiry, the Housing Development and Programs\nManager stated the County Auditor-Controller would need to audit each agency's\nenforceable obligation schedule by July 1st.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam inquired whether a trust fund would be\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\n1\nJanuary 1, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "automatically established by ABX1 26, to which the Housing Development and\nPrograms Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated on February 1st, responsible agencies would start\nexpending funds in the normal course of business; hopefully, reimbursement would be\nset in place on July 1st.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated an administrative budget\nneeds to be presented for each successor agency by February; the legislation has\nsome inconsistencies; last year, an obligation schedule was done which predicted\npayment obligations pursuant to enforceable obligations; the next one would be due\nMarch 1st, which would cover January 1st to June 30th; schedules would need to be\napproved by the Oversight Board that would review work of the successor agency; the\nOversight Board would not come into existence until May 1st; suggested amending\nSection 7 to read: \"This resolution shall take effect and be enforced as of the deadline\nfor adoption of this resolution established pursuant to State law as may be amended\nfrom time to time\".\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam's inquired whether the City could recover money, to\nwhich the City Manager/Executive Director responded the money has not been\nsubmitted yet.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated the State was not hitting budget targets before the ruling; it\nappeared that automatic cuts would go into effect; the State will not receive $1.7 billion\ndue to legislation being declared unconstitutional.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated that the State has centralized what the\npayments would be but has created chaos throughout the system.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta stated things are moving very quickly; that he wants to\nensure that the City does not do something it will regret later; inquired what precautions\nwould be taken if another legislative remedy caused the City's successor agency role to\nnot be advantageous, to which the City Manager/Executive Director responded the\nresolutions could always be amended.\nIn response to Vice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta's inquiry, Rafael Mandelman, Burke,\nWilliams, and Sorensen, stated January 13th is the drop-dead date for cities to opt out of\nbecoming a successor agency.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated a significant amount of affordable\nhousing has been created by redevelopment agencies; inquired whether affordable\nhousing would also cease.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager responded hopefully, housing\nadvocates would do something about having a permanent income stream fund for\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\n2\nJanuary 1, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 7, "text": "affordable housing; stated the need would not go away.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Johnson stated the City receives allocations from the\nAssociation of Bay Area Governments (ABAG); without said money, houses cannot be\nbuilt regardless of the allocations.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated redevelopment has been the primary\neconomic development program in California; without economic development, there is\nno money for schools or work force housing; that he predicts the State would replace\nsome functions but would do so in a centralized, clunky way rather than in a flexible,\nnimble, and local manner.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired how other municipalities are handling\nthe issue, to which the Housing Development and Programs Manager responded\nAlameda would be the first to act on the matter.\nThe City Manager/Executive Director stated that redevelopment pays for police officers,\nhalf of the Mayor, Council, and Auditor's salary, which otherwise would need to come\nfrom the General Fund; everything would have to made up from the General Fund; the\nCity has never honeycombed redevelopment.\nMr. Mandelman stated the landscape is rapidly changing and the law is drafted poorly;\nthere will be many messy situations over the next months; the City would be taking on\nresponsibility to manage some of the chaos by becoming the successor agency;\nmanagement would be done by an unfriendly Oversight Board.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether another path or second best\napproach might be adequate but would not be as good as the one recommended\ntonight.\nMr. Mandelman responded tonight's recommendation is the only way to go if the City\nwants to be a successor agency; stated otherwise, the Governor would appoint County\nresidents.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore stated Council has tried for a number of years to get Alameda\nPoint from the Navy so that the City could have local control and have a say in how\nthings move forward.\nThe Housing Development and Programs Manager stated the City would want local\ncontrol over the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development Agreement; exercising\nlocal control over the project would be important.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam stated the City would have local control but would\nlose its ability to generate local revenue through redevelopment; the City would be more\ndependant upon private developer funding for infrastructure and meeting affordable\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\n3\nJanuary 1, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 8, "text": "housing marketing objectives; the City would have to find some way to be more\nmarketable and needs to fight fiercely.\nThe Acting City Attorney/Legal Council stated a lot of new ideas would be forthcoming.\nMr. Mandelman stated the California Redevelopment Association and League of\nCalifornia Cities are actively focusing on State goals but would include goals important\nto Alameda such as Base reuse and housing.\nIn favor of resolutions: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, and Jon\nSpangler, Alameda.\nMayor/Chair Gilmore expressed appreciation to staff for acting so quickly on the matter;\nstated the recommendation is viable.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Bonta inquired whether tonight's recommendation would be\nthe only way to exercise local control, to which Mr. Mandelman responded that he thinks\nso.\nIn response to Councilmember/Commissioner deHaan's inquiry, Mr. Mandelman stated\nthe deadline for dissolution is February 1st; up to that time, the legislature would have an\nopportunity to come up with something that would work for communities that have\nbases that need to be redeveloped; the deadline for deciding whether to be a successor\nagency is January 13th\nThe Chief Operating Officer stated that she has a conference call scheduled for 8:30\na.m. tomorrow with base reuse communities.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Johnson moved adoption of the resolutions with noted\namendment to Section 7.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 6.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 8:37\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Housing\nAuthority Board of Commissioners\n4\nJanuary 1, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority", "date": "2012-01-04", "page": 9, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND ALAMEDA\nREUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA) MEETING\nWEDNESDAY- -JANUARY 4, 2012--7:01 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:49 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers/Boaro Members Bonta, deHaan,\nJohnson, Tam and Mayor/Chair Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmembers/Board Member Johnson moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember/Board Member Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(12-016 CC) Resolution No. 14642, \"Appropriating $379,000 in Federal HOME Funds\nand Authorizing the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute the Necessary Documents\nto\nComplete the Loan to the Alameda Point Collaborative for Acquisition of 240 Corpus\nChristi, 230 Corpus Christi, 2471 Orion, 2451 Orion, 201 Stardust, 251 Stardust, and\n271 Stardust (\"Property\").' Adopted; and\n(12-008 ARRA) Recommendation to Approve Financing on the Property in the Amount\nof $2,279,000. Accepted.\nAGENDA ITEM\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:50\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJanuary 4, 2012", "path": "AlamedaReuseandRedevelopmentAuthority/2012-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:53 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n( 05-003 - ) Presentation on the basic requirements for an Indian\nTribe to operate a Casino in California.\nThe Assistant City Attorney provided a brief report on the basic\nrequirements to conduct tribal gaming.\nMayor Johnson stated that the purpose of the presentation was to\ninform the public on the required process for the Koi Tribe to\nobtain approval for a casino; stated that presentation tapes would\nbe available for public review and that the public should direct\nquestions to the City Attorney's office.\nMichael Scholtes, Bay Isle Pointe Home Owners Association, stated\nthat he opposes the proposed casino.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to place a resolution opposing the\nproposed casino on the next City Council agenda.\nRosemary Cambra, Mowekma Ohlone Tribe of the San Francisco Bay\nArea, submitted a handout and cautioned the Council on taking a\nstance against the proposed casino.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that Council would need to exert\npressure and fight on behalf of the City.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve\nAgreement between the Alameda Unified School District and the City\nof Alameda [paragraph no. 05-010], the Resolution Authorizing Open\nMarket Purchase [paragraph no. 05-012], and the Ordinance Amending\nthe Alameda Municipal Code [paragraph no. 05-016] were removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-004) - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on December 21, 2004. Approved.\n(*05-005) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,037,089.03\n(*05-006) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$127,102.65 to Stewart & Stevenson for Ferry Vessel Reduction\nGears, No. P.W. 10-04-15. Accepted.\n(*05-007) Recommendation to terminate the Contract with J.W. Riley\n& Son, Inc. for Alameda Point Multi Use Field, No. P.W. 12-02-18\nand authorize project completion. Accepted.\n(*05-008 - ) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of $45,000\nto Maze and Associates for Financial Modeling Services. Accepted.\n( *05-009) Recommendation to accept Annual Review of the Affordable\nHousing Ordinance. Accepted.\n(05-010) Recommendation to approve Agreement between the Alameda\nUnified School District and the City of Alameda for Use and\nDevelopment of Real Property at the K-8 School and Park site in the\nBayport Residential Development Project.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Agreement facilitates the goal for\nhaving the school and the park built near the Bayport residential\narea.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is funding for the\nPreschool and Tiny Tots at the Community Building, to which the\nRecreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(*05-011) - Recommendation to accept the Bayport Residential Interim\n115Kv overhead power line improvements and authorize recording a\nNotice of Completion. Accepted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 3, "text": "(05-012) - Resolution No. 13807, , \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nfrom Allied Sweepers, Inc., Pursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda\nCity Charter, of Green Machine Sidewalk Cleaning Equipment. \"\nAdopted.\nSherri Stieg, West Alameda Business Association (WABA) thanked the\nCouncil for their efforts with the Webster Street project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she was happy to see the project\nprogressing; she would like to see the trees replaced as soon as\npossible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is pleased with the progress;\nrequested periodic progress reports on the Streetscape Project.\nMayor Johnson stated schedule updates should continue to be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n( *05-013 - ) Resolution No. 13808, \"Approving Parcel Map No. 8401\n(2340 and 2350 North Loop Road). \" Adopted.\n(*05-014) Resolution No. 13809, \"Reappointing T. David Edwards as\nTrustee of the Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District.\n\"\nAdopted.\n(05-015) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -\nPILOT) ; Adding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in\nEnterprise Funds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III\n(Finance and Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10\n(Exemptions) of Section 18-4 (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I\n(Sewers) of Chapter XVIII (Sewer and Water) . Introduced.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that increasing the Return on\nInvestment (ROI) to 3% could cause some impacts; encouraged the\nCouncil not to vote tonight and place the matter as an action item\nfor the next City Council meeting; $782,000 would be received from\nAlameda Power & Telecom (AP&T) by staying at the original proposal\nof 1% ROI; if the $782,000 is relayed back to the rate payer, the\nmonthly bill could be increased from $1.53 to $2.03.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember Daysog moved introduction of the ordinance with\ndirection that the matter be brought back to Council if there would\nbe any cause for rate increases.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-016 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community\nBenefit Assessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda\nImprovement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation)\n.\nIntroduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-017) Recommendation to reappoint Mary Rudge as Alameda's Poet\nLaureat.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director outlined the nomination process.\nLisa Piatetsky, Executive Director Alameda City Art Council, stated\nthat she looks forward to having Ms. Rudge continue as Alameda's\nPoet Laureat.\nMary Rudge, Alameda, submitted a handout i outlined poet activities;\nthanked the Council for acknowledging and encouraging poetry.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 5, "text": "Nina Serrano, Alameda County Arts Commission, commended the Council\nfor having a Poet Laureat.\nMosetta Rose London, Alameda, thanked the Council for the\ndedication of the O'Club to Al DeWitt and for placing her poem on a\nplaque at the O 'Club; read a poem that she wrote.\nNanette Bradley Deetz, Alameda Island Poets, read a poem that she\nwrote about Alameda.\nKen Peterson, Vice President, Alameda Island Poets, stated the\nprogram has been a tremendous success for poetry and for the City.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-018 ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's denial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances V04-\n0005, V04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 to permit the construction of a\nrear deck and garage addition that was completed without City\npermits. The rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade\nto the top surface of the deck and is built up to the south (left\nside) and west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an\nexpansion of the existing single-family dwelling up to the north\n(right side) and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is\nrequesting four (4) Variances to permit the construction of the\nwork completed without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda\nMunicipal Code (AMC) Subsection 30-5.7(c) (2) (6) to construct a rear\ndeck that measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to\nthe south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a\nminimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring twelve\nto thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-\n5. 7 (e) (1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to the\nsouth side property line with zero setback, where a minimum three\nfoot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and landings 3)\nVariance to AMC Subsection 30-4.4(d) (7) to construct an attached\ngarage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the rear\nproperty line with zero setback where a minimum twenty foot setback\nis required for rear yards 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-\n4. 4 (d) (6) to construct an attached garage addition that extends the\nmain dwelling up to the north side property line with zero setback\nwhere a minimum five foot setback is required for side yards. The\nsite is located at 913 Oak Street within an R-4, Neighborhood\nResidential Zoning District. Applicant/Appellant: Fred and Ursula\nHoggenboom and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 6, "text": "(05-018A) Resolution No. 13810, \"Upholding the Planning Board's\nDenial of Major Design Review DR04-0013 and Variances, V04-005,\nV04-0015, V04-0016, V04-0017 for the Structural Expansion of a\nSingle-Family Residence and Construction of Rear Deck at 913 Oak\nStreet. \" Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a presentation on the background\nof the project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was a two-story\nstructure connected to the house, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the garage was intended to be\nmore than a one-car garage, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded that the plans indicate a one-car garage with storage on\nthe left side.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there was a proposal for the\nupstairs portion of the garage, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded the photographs show an attic with a couple of chairs and\ntable.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the garage doors are smaller than the\nwidth of the driveway there is a vent pipe that comes down along\nthe side of the house and protrudes into the driveway which would\nmake it very difficult for a car to enter the garage.\nThe Supervising Planner stated many driveways are challenging in\nterms of access.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she is concerned with the intent of\nusing the garage for the proposed use.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that the Parking Ordinance requires\nthat garages be kept free of structures to accommodate a vehicle.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the garage could abut the property\nline if detached from the house; once the garage is attached to the\nhouse, there are side and backyard setback issues.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the Code allows for garages to abut\nboth the side and rear property lines under certain circumstances\nthe front of the garage needs to be 75 feet from the front property\nline and there needs to be a 5-foot separation between the main\nhouse and the garage a detached garage could comply with the 75-\nfoot regulation; she is not sure about compliance with the 5-foot\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 7, "text": "separation because there is a small addition at the rear of the\nhouse which might result in less than a 5-foot separation; a\nsmaller detached garage might require a modest variance.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of the garage,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded approximately 300 square\nfeet.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the square footage of a typical\ngarage, to which the Supervising Planner responded a one-car garage\nwould be approximately 200 square feet.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the garage was larger than a typical\ngarage, to which the Supervising Planner responded that the\nresidents wanted storage.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the original garage was demolished, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded possibly a few years ago.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a deck variance\ninvolved.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the deck required a variance\nbecause it is 28 inches from the grade decks 12 inches from the\ngrade or less are allowed to encroach into yards decks between 12\nand 30 inches require a -foot separation from the side and rear\nproperty line; there is an opportunity to modify the deck by either\nreducing the height, which would result in a deck that is not level\nwith the house, or by reducing the size of the deck to provide the\nrequired set back.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was a height limit on backyard\nfences, to which the Supervising Planner responded the limit is 6\nfeet for a solid fence and 8 feet for a fence with 2 feet of\nlattice on top.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was an 11-foot fence in the\nyard, to which the Supervising Planner responded that staff is not\nclear who owns the fences that surround the property.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the fence issue would be pursued\nregardless of tonight's decision, to which the Supervising Planner\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of appeal) : Fred Hogenboom, Alameda, and\nUrsula Hogenboom, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 8, "text": "Opponents (Opposed to appeal) : Raymond A. Pacovsky, Sr., Alameda;\nRaymond S. Pacovsky, Jr., Alameda, and Barbara Kerr, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated the initiation of construction without permits\nmakes the permitting process difficult; inquired whether the\nAppellant informed the Planning Board that the structure was over\nhis property line.\nThe Appellant responded in the negative; stated that the structure\nis well within the property line; the structure was moved 2 inches\ninward from the original garage.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how tall the spa was from the floor of\nthe deck to the top of the spa, to which the Appellant responded\nthree and a half feet at the most.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the Planning staff recommended\ndropping the deck approximately 12 inches; inquired whether the 12\ninches would equate to two steps.\nThe Appellant stated that he would need to put in three steps to\nlower the deck 12 inches.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether accommodating his wife was part\nof the reason for having the deck the same level as the house.\nThe Appellant responded that his wife has had two back surgeries\nand three hip replacements; stairs are difficult for her.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there is a two-foot hop to get into the\nspa which appears to be more difficult to navigate than the stairs\nout of the house.\nMayor Johnson stated that one of the reasons for deck height limits\nis because high decks and spas are an intrusion into neighbors'\nbackyards inquired how the footprint of the original garage was\nestablished.\nThe Supervising Planner responded that the Appellant submitted\nplans in 1991 for foundation work at the front of the house which\nindicate that there is a separation between the back of the house;\nthe then existing garage did not seem to be as close as the current\nplans show.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant put siding on the\nneighbors' structures, to which the Appellant responded that he put\nsheet metal up to prevent rotting.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 9, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant asked the neighbors\nbefore putting up the sheet metal, to which the Appellant responded\nin the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what would happen if the variances are\ndenied, to which the Supervising Planner responded that two things\ncould happen; the Appellant could work with staff for a solution\nthat would allow a garage and deck that is either fully in\ncompliance or would require a more modest variance or the Appellant\ncould file a lawsuit against the City.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Appellant has paid fines, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded investigative fees and fees\nfor working without the proper planning permits have been charged.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution upholding the\nPlanning Board's decision and denying the Appeal.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated there was only one\ndecision that the Planning Board could have made given the\ncircumstances; encouraged the owner to work with the Planning\nDepartment to salvage the intent of the project within the\nrequirements of the Code.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she assumes that the Appellants had\nthe best of intentions; the Code clearly specifies detached garage\nand addition requirements; the project is attempting to be both an\naddition to the house and a garage stated future owners could\nconvert the garage into a living space.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(05-019) - Discussion regarding assistance for tenants at Harbor\nIsland Apartments.\nMayor Johnson stated that rent control issues are not on the agenda\ntonight but that the public is free to speak under Oral\nCommunications\nThe Housing Authority Executive Director gave a brief presentation\nregarding the assistance provided to the Harbor Island Apartment\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 10, "text": "tenants.\nSpeakers John Sullivan, San Leandro, Mark Harney, Fifteen Asset\nManagement Group; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners' Association;\nLorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association; Eve Bach, Arc\nEcology Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Steve Edrington, Renal Housing\nAssociation; Delores Wells, Harbor Island Tenant Association\n(submitted letter) ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant\nAssociation; Mary Green-Parks, Alameda; Gen Fujioka, Asian Law\nCaucus; Reginald James, Alameda; Michael Yoshii, Alamedal; and Bill\nSmith, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there are a total of 17 units\ncurrently occupied, to which Mr. Harney responded there are 17\nunits that are occupied by tenants with leases; there are 9 units\noccupied by tenants who have stopped paying rent.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether relocation assistance would still be\navailable to the remaining tenants with leases, to which Mr. Harney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired how many Harbor Island Apartment\ntenants remained in Alameda, to which Mr. Harney responded that he\nwas not certain; not all tenants provided forwarding information.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested information on the number of Section\n8\ntenants that remained in Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Council wants to know what the\nimmediate issues are in dealing with individuals who are still\noccupying units at the Harbor Island Apartments and what assistance\ncan be provided; inquired whether there are housing assistance\nopportunities for the remaining tenants through Community\nDevelopment programs or Sentinel Fair Housing.\nThe Community Development Manager responded that the Community\nDevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) Program contracts with Sentinel Fair\nHousing and the Red Cross; Sentinel Fair Housing has been involved\nwith a number of the tenants; CDBG funds are also being used to\nproduce new affordable housing units through the Substantial\nRehabilitation Program; several of the units would be available to\napplicants who previously resided at the Harbor Island Apartments\nsecurity deposit assistance programs have been funded in the past\nwhich allowed Housing Authority tenants to borrow money from the\nrevolving loan fund and repay over time; the fund was depleted as a\nresult of earlier Section 8 problems; another funding cycle would\nbecome available in July.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether there was a way to work\nwith the Apartment Owners' Association to help the remaining\ntenants.\nThe Community Development Manager responded there could be some\ncoordination for specific interventions that may help the tenants\nthe cash to provide deposits is a longer-term consideration and\nmight be more difficult without reprogramming of funds.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to review loan possibilities.\nThe City Manager stated that he would work with staff to find\nsolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated aggressive action is needed to help\nthe remaining tenants.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that most families would like to remain\nat the Harbor Island Apartments but the courts have ruled otherwise\nand they must move; the City needs to see what can be done to\nfacilitate the situation in a manner that dignifies the tenants.\nthe Council needs to pursue the best policy that prevents the\nHarbor Island Apartment situation from happening again.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-020 - ) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that the Webster\nStreet construction has posed a danger to bus passengers at the bus\nstops.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated that the construction work has\nbeen delayed because of the rain; stated he would discuss the\nsituation with the Public Works Director.\n(05-021) Reginald James, Alameda, encouraged the reappointment of\nMary Rudge as Alameda's Poet Laureat; stated that he was concerned\nabout a sign stating that there may be a possible reproductive\nharmful environment at the Harbor Island Apartments ; stated that\nthere should be another meeting of the Harbor Island Task Force.\n(05-022) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed earthquakes.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-023) Councilmember Matarrese welcomed Interim City Manager,\nBill Norton.\nMayor Johnson welcomed the Interim City Manager to his first\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 12, "text": "Council Meeting.\nADJOURNMEN'T\n(05-024) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular City Council meeting at 11:15 in a moment of silence\nand sympathy for the tsunami victims in Southeast Asia.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-04", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JANUARY 4, 2005- - -6:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:30 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-001) Public Employment; Title: City Manager.\n(05-002) Public Employee Performance Evaluation; Title: City\nAttorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed Public\nEmployment and recruitment of the new City Manager, and Public\nEmployee Performance Evaluation of the City Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 4, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-04.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-05", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nWEDNESDAY - - - JANUARY 5, 2005\n-\n-\n-\n5:31\nP.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers / Commissioners / Authority\nMembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Joint Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider :\n(05-025CC/05-001CIC Conference with Real Property Negotiators;\nProperty : Alameda Naval Air Station, Fleet Industrial Supply\nCenter; Negotiating Parties City of Alameda, Community Improvement\nCommission, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda\nPoint Collaborative; Under Negotiations Price and terms.\nFollowing the Closed session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor/Chair Johnson announced that the Council/Commission/\nAuthority gave direction to follow the negotiating approach\nrecommended by the real property negotiator.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned\nthe Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nJanuary 5, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-05.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Gilmore convened the Regular Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note: Mayor Johnson was present via teleconference from The\nCapital Hilton, 16th and K Street NW, Washington DC only for the\nResolution Opposing the Proposed Casino paragraph no. 05-037].\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-027) Councilmember Matarrese moved that the Public Hearing to\nconsider an Appeal of J. Barni [paragraph no. 05-034]; the Public\nHearing to consider amendment to Zoning Map [paragraph no. 05-035];\nand the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen\n[paragraph no. 05-036] be moved to the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes: Louncilmembers Daysog, deHaan,\nMatarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson -\n1. ]\n(05-028) - Councilmember deHaan moved that discussion regarding\noptions for relocation assistance legislation [paragraph no. 05- -\n040] be heard first on the Regular Agenda.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which FAILED by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes Councilmembers Daysog and deHaan -2.\nNoes : Councilmember Matarrese and Acting Mayor Gilmore - 2.\n[Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-029 ) Proclamation declaring January as Blood Donor Month in\nthe City of Alameda.\nActing Mayor Gilmore read and presented the proclamation to Beth\nWren, Donor Recruitment Account Manager.\nMs. Wren thanked the Council for their support of the Red Cross and\nannounced that there will be a blood drive on Friday in San Leandro\nat the Creekside Community Church.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 2, "text": "Michael John Torrey, Alameda, commented on the importance of\ndonating blood.\n(05-030) Presentation by Peter Simon, Dean, College of Alameda and\nLiz Sullivan, Organizer with Oakland Community Organizations\nregarding the proposed Oakland Aviation High School at the Oakland\nAirport. Withdrawn by presenters.\n(05-031) Presentation of letters of appreciation to members of the\nAlameda Police Department by NC1 Danielle Carter, Recruiter, Naval\nReserve Recruiting Area Pacific.\nNC1 Randy Montrose, Recruiter in Charge, Naval Reserve Recruiting\nArea Pacific, presented letters of appreciation to members of the\nAlameda Police Department ; Sergeant Jill Ottaviano, Alameda Police\nDepartment, accepted the letters of appreciation on behalf of the\nAlameda Police Department.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,\nincluding continuing the Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of J.\nBarni to February 1; continuing the Public Hearing to consider\nAmendment to Zoning Map to February 1; and noticing the Public\nHearing to consider an Appeal of Rita Mohlen for a later date.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. ]\n(*05-032) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) Meeting of December 21, 2004; the\nSpecial and Regular City Council Meetings held on January 4, 2005;\nand the Special Joint City Council, CIC and Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority Meeting of January 5, 2005. Approved.\n(*05-033) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,049,755.31.\n(05-034) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300\nsquare foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to\nreplace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,\nwith a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related\nresolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the\nC-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning\nDistricts. Appellant: J. Barni. Continued to February 1, 2005.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 3, "text": "(*05-035) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to\nrezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett\nStreet, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community\nCommercial and\n(*05-035A) - Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to\nDesignate APN 070-170-15, Approximately One-Fifth Acre, from R-5\nHotel Residential to C-C Community Commercial, on Central Avenue at\nEverett Street. Continued to February 1, 2005.\n(*05-036 - ) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's denial of Variances, V04-0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and\ndenial of Major Design Review, DR04-0026, for all development\nprojects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related resolution.\nThe site is located within an R-1, Single-Family Residential Zoning\nDistrict. The development project includes expansion of the\nresidence into the estuary and installation of rear yard decks.\nApproval is being sought for the following: 1) Variance to AMC\nSubsection 30-4.1(d) (3) (Maximum Main Building Coverage exceeding\n48%) i 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-4.1(d) (7) and Section 30-2\n(Rear Yard) because the building extends across the rear property\nline into the estuary 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(a)\n(Roof Eaves) and 30-5.7(d) (Bay Windows) because the roof leaves\nabove the bay windows encroach to within 3 feet from the side\nproperty line and bay windows are not permitted to encroach into\nside yards; 4) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-5.7(c) (1) (Rear Yard) ,\nSubsection 30-2 (Definitions) (Yard-Rear) and Subsection 30-\n4. 1 (d) (7) (Rear Yard) because decks over 36-inches in height extend\ninto the required side and rear yard setbacks 5) Variance to AMC\nSubsection 30-5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens\naround the patios exceed the maximum permitted - -foot height. The\nPlanning Board found that the Variance for the bay window\nencroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance,\nsubject to Design Review approval. Applicant/Appellant: Rita\nMohlen. To be noticed for a later date.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( (05-037) Resolution No. 13811, \"Opposing the Proposed Lower Lake\nRancheria-Koi Nation Casino in the City of Oakland. \" Adopted.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that it is important to make\nsure that the Rancheria-Koi Nation does not get the land trust.\nMelody Marr, Alameda Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber\nsupports the Resolution; submitted a packet of information from the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 4, "text": "Chamber's Town Hall Meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Council needs to send a strong\nmessage in support of the Resolution opposing the Rancheria-Koi -\nNation proposed casino; Alameda's vote, along with the City of San\nLeandro, Alameda County, and the City of Oakland, will send a\nstrong message to the Bureau of Indian Affairs stated she had the\nopportunity to speak with Congressman Stark and that he will\nsupport Alameda in their efforts.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the casino proposal is not good\nfor Alameda, the adjoining wildlife refuge, the City of Oakland and\nis a false economy that he would oppose any casino by any tribe in\nany urban area; he hopes that there is unanimous support of the\nResolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he joins his\ncolleagues in opposing the casino; Council should consider joining\nthe City of Oakland in pursuing legal issues.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has spoken to the Interim City\nManager and meetings have already taken place Alameda is working\nwith San Leandro to jointly respond to the environmental documents;\nstaff is working with the City of Oakland; Alameda County should be\nincluded in pooling resources to save money in the battle opposing\nthe casino.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that there should be an amendment to\nthe Resolution which would include directing the City Attorney to\nwork with colleagues in the surrounding jurisdictions to actively\noppose the proposed casino.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Resolution should be very strong,\nclear and precise regarding Alameda's position on the casino; that\nshe would prefer to give separate direction to staff to work with\nthe surrounding communities and Alameda County.\nActing Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Councilmember Daysog was\namicable to giving staff direction, to which Councilmember Daysog\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he commends the Council in taking\nthe lead; the matter will be an uphill push involving federal\nregulations.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 5, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog stated that he opposes the proposed casino for\na number of reasons, including crime and the urban planning impacts\non Alameda and other cities. the proposed casino is only one of a\nwave of casinos to come which are inappropriate for the area.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the Oakland City Council wanted to\nensure that Alameda has no desire to have a casino.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( 05-038) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs\nfor Community Development Block Grant Annual and Five-Year Plans.\nThe Community Development Manager gave a brief presentation on the\nhousing and community development needs.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested an Off Agenda Report update on the\nSection 8 funding.\nJim Franz, American Red Cross, urged the Council to encourage the\ncontinuation of a balance of service provisions that provide a\nsafety net in the community.\nHugh Cavanaugh, Alameda Food Bank, stated there has been a 50%\ngrowth in the past three years and that he expects the growth to\ncontinue over the next few years.\nSteven Currie, Social Services Human Relations Board (SSHRB), read\na letter from SSHRB encouraging the Council to continue the safety\nnet services and programs that empower and support residents'\nefforts toward self-sufficiency.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the Social Services Human Relations\nBoard for their work; stated that he looked forward to receiving\nthe Board's recommendations.\n(05-039) Report regarding Corrective and Preventive Plan in\nresponse to the Memorandum on Internal Control Structure.\nActing Mayor Gilmore stated that the matter was being discussed\nbecause Council requested staff to respond to questions resulting\nfrom the City's annual audit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested information on the amount of the\nfund balance deficit ; inquired whether the list of items in the\naudit recommendation regarding the budget represents surplus or\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 6, "text": "deficit.\nThe Finance Director responded that she would provide the\ninformation to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to have the\nrequested information coordinated with the budget information\nprovided in the first week of February.\nActing Mayor Gilmore stated that the City has become dependant on\nInformation Technology services system failure would result in\ncountless hours of lost productivity; Council should carefully\nreview the costs of addressing the issue and prioritize\naccordingly.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the Plan makes a lot of the\ninternal mechanisms of the City transparent; requested information\non the debt reserve compliance issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether bonds are typically\nrefinanced without the qualification process.\nThe Finance Director responded there would be a competitive bid\nprocess if a bond is straight forward and uncomplicated;\ncomplicated bonds would be negotiated; the underwriters would\nrespond to the Request for Proposal (RFP) stating what could be\ndone at what price; staff would then recommend a selection to the\ngoverning body.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested that the bond bidding process be\nplaced on a future agenda for discussion; stated that it is\nimportant for Council to be involved in the bidding of bonds and in\nthe decision not to bid.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the City's retirement and\nhealth benefit costs have increased dramatically; the City's Public\nEmployee Retirement System (PERS) contribution increased 615% from\n2002 to 2004.\n(05-040) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance\nlegislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,\ndemolition and condominium conversion in the \"West End Atlantic\nCorridor Area\" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific\nAvenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).\nThe Interim City Manager provided a brief outline of the Harbor\nIsland Apartment eviction process and staff's coordinating efforts\nto financially help the remaining tenants move.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 7, "text": "Acting Mayor Gilmore stated that the Council would not be taking\naction tonight; public testimony would be taken and the matter\nwould be continued to the February 1, 2005 City Council Meeting\n;\nthe two meeting nights constitute one meeting; stated speakers can\nspeak at tonight's meeting or on February 1, but not at both.\nProponents: Regina Tillman, Alameda; Steven Garner, Alameda; Frank\nSkiles, Alameda Gretchen Lipow, Alameda; Ron Salsig, Alameda;\nWendy Horikoshi, Alameda; Janet Gibson, Alameda Unified School\nDistrict; Reginald James, Alameda; Eve Bach, Alameda; Carl Halpern,\nAlameda;Mary Green Parks, Alameda.\nOpponents: Dominic Pasanisi, Alameda; Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Fern\nWallace, Alameda; Bernie Fitzgerald, Alameda; Melinda Samuelson,\nAlameda; Steven Edrington, Alameda [submitted handout] ; Carol\nMartino, Realty World Martino Associates; John Sullivan, San\nLeandro; Kathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Thomas S.\nCooke, Manager, Bonanza Apartments; Carmen Lasar, Alameda: and,\nMonica Getten, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the City Attorney provide an\nanalysis of existing State law which might overlap with the\nproposed ordinance, particularly landlord and tenant relationships\nstated that there is plenty of State law protecting individual\ntenants in contracts with landlords; he is concerned that there is\nnot much protection for the community; there is significant impact\non the community and the schools when owners choose to wipe out a\nlarge complex; the matter is not about rent control he has never\nsupported rent control, which has always been a failure; there has\nnever been a complaint about rent being too high, only complaints\nthat rent is too high for the services not being delivered.\nActing Mayor Gilmore requested information on how many properties\nhave 40 units or more and the total number of units in the \"West\nEnd Atlantic Corridor Area\", and requested staff to provide\ninformation on how the ordinance would work in the absence of rent\ncontrol.\n(05-041) Ordinance No. 2934, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Amending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes -PILOT) ;\nAdding a New Subsection 3-28.10 (Return on Investment in Enterprise\nFunds) of Section 3-28 (Payment of Taxes) of Chapter III (Finance\nand Taxation) and Adding a New Subsection 18-4.10 (Exemptions) of\nSection 18-4 - (Sewer Service Charge) of Article I (Sewers\nof\nChapter XVIII ( Sewer and Water) \" Finally passed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Ordinance provides some hope to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 8, "text": "close the gap in the budget shortfall; moved final passage of the\nOrdinance.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion Councilmember Daysog, stated that he was concerned\nabout the possibility of a charge on either cable or electric\nbills; it is important to be upfront with the public regarding the\n$750,000 and the possibility of recouping the money through rate\ncharges.\nThe Interim City Manager stated impacts would be determined through\nthe Alameda Power and Telecom (AP&T) budget processi stated that\nthere are always trade offs in the budget.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he supports the Ordinance, which\nis the more conservative approach given the different options\npresented.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that there is a good likelihood that\nsomething would need to be massaged; AP&T should not go through a\ndisproportionate adjustment.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n(05-042) Ordinance No. 2935, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nby Adding a New Section 3-91 (City of Alameda Community Benefit\nAssessment Procedure Code) to Article VI (City of Alameda\nImprovement Procedure Code) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) . \"\nFinally passed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved final passage of the Ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent: Mayor Johnson - 1.\n]\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-043 - ) Councilmember deHaan inquired whether the budget review\nprocess would take two months.\nThe Interim City Manager outlined the budget adoption process and\nstated the mid-year budget review addresses expenditures and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 9, "text": "revenues through the end of December and should be addressed at the\nfirst or second meeting in February.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:02 p.m.\nRespectfully Submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 10, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 18, 2005 - -6:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 6:33 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-026) - Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators :\nHuman Resources Director and Craig Jory; Employee Organizations :\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association and Police\nAssociation Non-Sworn.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Acting Mayor Gilmore announced that the Council gave directions\nto labor negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 11, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 6:55 P. M.\nActing Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:15 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nChair Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-002) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.91 Number of cases: One.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Acting Chair Gilmore announced that the Commission obtained\nbriefing from staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:32 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-18", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - JANUARY 18, 2005 - - - 7:25 P. M.\nActing Chair Gilmore convened the Special Meeting at 7:42 p.m.\nCommissioner Daysog led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Commissioners Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese,\nand Acting Chair Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nChair Johnson - 1.\nMINUTES\n(05-003) Minutes of the Special Community Improvement Commission\n(CIC) Meetings of December 7, 2004; the Special Joint City Council\nand CIC Meeting of December 21, 2004; and the Special Joint City\nCouncil, CIC and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting\nof January 5, 2005. Approved.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved approval of the minutes.\nCommissioner Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent : Chair Johnson - 1. ] Note: Commissioner\ndeHaan abstained from voting on the December 7 and 21, 2004\nMinutes.\nAGENDA ITEM\n(05-004) Recommendation to approve a contract with Michael Stanton\nArchitecture for design review services for the proposed Historic\nAlameda Theatre, Parking Structure and Cinema Multiplex Project in\nan amount not to exceed $92,500.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the contract is one step closer to\ngetting the theatre; moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 4. [Absent Chair Johnson - 1.\n]\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Chair Gilmore adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nAgenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nJanuary 18, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006--7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:11 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-029) - Mayor Johnson encouraged the Alameda High School students\nand Troup 73 Boy Scouts attending the meeting to learn about local\ngovernment; stated the City has good job opportunities.\n(06-030) Proclamation declaring February 3, 2006 as \"Wear Red for\nWomen\" Day in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation; stated the proclamation would\nbe forwarded to the American Heart Association.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number. . ]\n( *06-031) - Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nJanuary 3, 2006. Approved.\n( *06-032) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,585,271.93.\n( *06-033) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda Investment\nPolicy. Accepted.\n(*06-034) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to execute\nthe fifth amendment to the Measure B Funding Agreement and fourth\namendment to the Measure B Project Implementation Agreement by and\nbetween the City of Alameda, the Alameda County Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 2, "text": "Authority, the Port of Oakland, and the City of Oakland for the\nCross Airport Roadway Project (Ron Cowan Parkway) Accepted.\n( *06-035) - Recommendation to accept and authorize recording a Notice\nof Completion for the Bayport Stormwater Pump Station System\nImprovements. Accepted.\n(*06-036) Recommendation to authorize execution of a lead-based\npaint hazard reduction Grant Agreement with Alameda County Lead\nPoisoning Prevention Program. Accepted.\n(*06-037) Resolution No. 13920, \"Approving the Application for\nCalifornia Cultural and Historical Endowment (CCHE) under the\nCalifornia Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks and\nCoastal Protection Act of 2002. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-038) Resolution No. 13921, \"Appointing Michael B. Cooper as a\nmember of the City Recreation and Park Commission. Adopted and\n(06-038A) Resolution No. 13922, \"Appointing Dora J. Dome as a\nmember of the City Social Services and Human Relations Board.\n\"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolutions.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Ms. Dome.\n(06-039) Resolution No. 13923, \"Commending Alameda Police\nLieutenant Bob Cranford for his contributions to the City of\nAlameda. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson read the Resolution.\nThe Acting Police Chief accepted the Resolution on behalf of\nLieutenant Cranford and expressed Lieutenant Cranford's\nappreciation for the Resolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 3, "text": "(06-040) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Bayport Alameda Community Building and\nPark Project.\nThe Redevelopment Manager provided a brief presentation.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director presented drawings\noutlining the schematics for the proposed park site.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the restrooms would be separate\nfrom the community building.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the\nrestrooms would be separate for park access.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the adjacent school property area has\nasphalt; inquired whether the area would be accessible at all\ntimes, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded\nin the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the proposed trees are\nappropriate for the climate, to which the Acting Recreation and\nPark Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there would be adequate drainage.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative; stated adequate drainage has been stressed throughout\nthe design process.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether sprinkler systems would cover the\ninfield area.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded that the\nspecifications would address specific sprinkler systems for the\nsite.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that the older parks have a lot of tree\nroot issues; inquired whether root guards were considered.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative stated the design team was very conscience of tree\ntype and placement.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the square footage of the\nmulti-purpose room, to which the Acting Recreation and Park\nDirector responded 1,700 square feet.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 4, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether other multi-purpose rooms\nwere comparable in size.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the proposed\nmulti-purpose room would be larger than most.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what are the anticipated uses for\nthe baseball and softball fields.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the use would\ndepend on the age of the participants; stated two practices could\nbe held at the same time for age groups under 12.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested an explanation of funding sources.\nThe Redevelopment Manager responded the funding sources come from\nproject revenues such as land sale proceeds, residential profit\nparticipation, and tax increment.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether adequate benches would be provided.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative; stated the play areas would have benches also.\nMayor Johnson stated that the Joint Use Agreement was a great\nsuccess; the City and School District benefit when resources are\npulled together.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director noted the new park would be\nthe first park built since Tilden Park in 1993.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-041) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Adding Section 2-18 (Alameda Film Commission) to Chapter II\n(Administration), Establishing an Alameda Film Commission, and\nPrescribing Membership and Duties of Said Commission. Introduced.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief report.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether neighborhoods, business\ndistricts, and areas at Alameda Point had filming opportunities in\nthe past, to which the Development Services Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with having only\none neighborhood representative; he would prefer to have two at- -\nlarge neighborhood representatives neighborhoods are impacted\nbusiness district representatives might not be Alameda residents.\nMayor Johnson stated that she understood the Commission's role to\nbe marketing, not daily management.\nThe Development Services Director stated the permitting process\nwould not change deposits are provided for police services.\nMayor Johnson stated that times were restricted when filming was\ndone on the bridge; police officers were present; pedestrians were\nnotified of detours; the Commission's role should not be\ncoordinating the activities.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the Business\nDevelopment Division Coordinator would work as the staff liaison to\ncoordinate various activities; the Commission would help with\ninquiries and marketing; the State has developed a program to\neducate neighborhoods and raise awareness.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated filming has been done on her street over\nthe last few years; the film production company sent someone out to\nexplain the filming process; stated that the experience was\npositive.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that his neighborhood had mixed reviews\nwith the filming processi the neighborhood needs to be involved\nwith handling location requests.\nMayor Johnson stated having someone familiar with the historical\nareas of Alameda is important.\nThe Development Services Director suggested reducing the number of\nmembers with working knowledge of the film/video industry to three,\nadding a resident with knowledge of historic districts, and\nchanging the \"neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation\nSociety representative\" to \"neighborhood member\"\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested all members be Alameda residents,\nexcept business representatives.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated some film industry people work for\nemployers in town and should be able to be considered; the bulk of\nthe Commission should be Alameda residents.\nMayor Johnson stated that the majority of the Commission should be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 6, "text": "Alameda residents.\nThe Development Services Director stated that the initial terms\ncould be shortened to no longer than two years.\nCouncilmember deHaan concurred with the Development Services\nDirector; stated the terms should be staggered and reviewed; the\nnumber of business representatives could be reduced; he would\nprefer to eliminate the Chamber of Commerce representative.\nThe City Attorney outlined the sections of the ordinance to be\nrevised.\nMayor Johnson clarified that the terms should be a maximum of two\nyears.\nThe Development Services Director stated terms could be for one and\ntwo years.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted he would like the membership brought\ndown to nine members.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved introduction of the ordinance with the\nproposed amendments : [1) reduce the number of members with working\nknowledge of the film/video industry to three; 2) change the\n\"neighborhood member or Alameda Victorian Preservation Society\nrepresentative\" to \"neighborhood member; 3) add a neighborhood\nmember with knowledge of historic districts; 4) require that the\nmajority of the commissioners be Alameda residents; and 5) shorten\nterms to one and two year staggered terms)\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(06-042 - ) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs\nfor the Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.\nThe Development Services Director provided a brief report.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nDoug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative (APC) , stated that he\nsupports the recommendations of staff and the Social Services Human\nRelations Board (SSHRB) ; APC is building the capacity of the\ncommunity; Americans with Disability Act (ADA) compliance is a\ngrowing issue.\nJim Franz, Alameda, stated he supports continued funding for safety\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 7, "text": "net services special consideration should be given to\norganizations that provide education along with services; a\ndisaster preparedness kit should be provided to low-income\nfamilies.\nRobert Bonta, SSHRB, stated the SSHRB was pleased to weigh in on\nthe public service needs employment, transportation, and child\ncare are needed in addition to improving access to affordable\nhousing; services are not being maximized; he hopes that SSHRB'S\nfour focus areas guide in the decision making.\nMichael John Torrey, Alameda, stated that extraordinary maintenance\nissues are coming up for the Housing Authority facilities the\nfinal Town Hall Meeting is scheduled for Thursday.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the meeting's focus was to gather\ninformation about extraordinary maintenance.\nMr. Torrey responded that extraordinary maintenance is part of the\nfocus information on proposed improvements is provided to\nresidents; resident input is requested.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether extraordinary maintenance funding\nwas available.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager responded in the affirmative;\nstated Housing Authority reserves and bond funds would pay for\nhousing complex repairs; a physical needs assessment was conducted\nand approved; the physical needs assessment determines the type of\nimprovements needed over the next 20 years.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the SSHRB did a terrific job in\ndeveloping criteria; the criteria used to measure the performance\nof the organizations receiving the grants should align with the\nSSHRB's four focus areas to ensure that the money is well spent and\ngoals have been achieved; improving access to affordable housing\nshould include upholding anti-discrimination laws individuals need\nto be provided with an avenue to bring discrimination issues to the\nproper authorities; SSHRB'S criteria needs to be incorporated into\nthe measurement of success to ensure that contractors know what is\nexpected.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any feedback was available on\nthe Sentinel issue.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 8, "text": "The Development Services Director responded staff was working on a\nnew scope of work and information would be provided to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there was a possibility to\nreceive more than the $1.3 million grant.\nThe Development Services Director responded next year's total\nbudget will be approximately $1.5 million with recaptured funds\nfrom loans; the outright grant will be approximately $1.3 million;\nprogram revenues and reclaimed dollars will be approximately\n$200,000.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the CDBG funding takes care\nof the Housing Authority's needs, to which the Acting Assistant\nCity Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Development Services\nDepartment's funding portion takes care of housing over and above\nthe Housing Authority.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated the majority of CDBG funding is for housing and rental\nrehabilitation.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated that the Housing Authority\nhas used CDBG, HOME, and redevelopment funds in the past but does\nnot plan to use the funding this year.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether anyone's needs would be left out\nwith the proposed Action Plan, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether community service needs are\nreviewed periodically.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative;\nstated Alameda goes beyond what is required; stated safety net\nprovider participation is unbelievable.\nMayor Johnson thanked the SSHRB and staff for all the hard work.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 9, "text": "(06-043) Brien Burroughs, Glass Eye Media, stated that he is\nproducing an independently financed television pilot at City Hall\non Thursday and Friday barriers sometimes come up when filming at\ngovernment sites; all his contacts in Alameda have been great ;\nstated he appreciates the support.\n(06-044) Patrick Lynch, Alameda, stated there is corruption in the\nPlanning Department a resolution was passed by the Council on June\n21, , 2005 which required the owner of a vacant lot adjacent to his\nhome to conduct a specific soil test prior to receiving design\nreview; the testing was submitted; the design review was approved\nand has been appealed to the Planning Board; he is unable to get a\nfair hearing with the Planning Board; staff refuses to provide\naccurate information; the City denies using the wrong section of\nthe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in approving the\ndevelopment; he received a $100 invoice to file a new form with the\nState; he received a $1600 invoice, which includes over five hours\nto discuss the project with City Attorney's office; the facts are\nundisputable; urged members of the Council to appeal the decision\nof the Planning Board.\nMayor\nJohnson stated that Mr. Lynch should communicate his concerns\nwith the City Manager.\nMr. Lynch stated that he spoke with the Acting Assistant City\nManager on Thursday and has not received a reply.\nThe Acting Assistant City Manager stated that he spoke to Mr.\nLynch, the Planning Department staff, and City Attorney's office\nlast week; he still has one more person to contact; he will get\nback to Mr. Lynch.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-045\n-\n)\nConsideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Economic Development Commission. Continued.\n(06-046) Councilmember deHaan stated streetscape funding was\ndiscussed at the last Council meeting he hopes that electrical\nprovisions have been included to allow for embedded pedestrian\nlights [ on Park Street] between Central Avenue and Santa Clara\nAvenue when funding is available.\n(\n(06-047) Councilmember deHaan stated a lot of homes have been fire\ndamaged over a period of time; inquired whether remediation is\nrequired within a certain amount of time; stated areas are an\neyesore and a nuisance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 10, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated that she was concerned with the building at\nthe corner of Central Avenue and Park Street the boards are down,\nbut nothing is being done; inquired whether more controls are\nneeded to ensure that owners remedy buildings within a certain\namount of time.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested information on applicable\nordinances.\nThe City Manager stated that information would be provided to the\nCouncil.\n(06-048) - Councilmember Matarrese stated that a vehicle inventory\nwas discussed a few months ago; he would like Council to consider\nestablishing a vehicle use resolution or policy so that the City\ncan set an example; the resolution should include how vehicles are\npurchased, where to purchase alternative fuel vehicles such as\nnatural gas and electric, and City vehicle use to reduce the number\nof single occupancy trips; requested that the use policy be brought\nback to the Council for consideration; the purchase of vehicles\nshould follow.\n(06-049) Councilmember deHaan stated vehicle inventory is\nimportant ; he would prefer a separate line item in the budget to\nindicate the amount spent up front excess vehicles were auctioned\nover the last three or four months; a number of vehicles are no\nlonger usable; the number of excess vehicles and future needs\nshould be reviewed; uniform vehicle markings are extremely\nimportant.\nThe City Manager stated that the replacement criteria were being\nreviewed; a general policy for alternative fuel would be provided\nto Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan congratulated Alameda Power and Telecom for\nusing hybrid cars; stated an inventory should be established\nvehicles should be replaced in a logical manner.\n(06-050 - ) Mayor Johnson stated that the athletic facilities' use\npolicy should be brought to the Council for adoption by resolution\nor ordinance; the current policy is not compliant.\nThe City Manager stated that staff is in the process of rewriting\nthe policy.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would prefer a formalized Council\nresolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 11, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\n(06-051) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 9:40 p.m. in a moment of silence for City\nEmployee Matt Plumlee's family loss.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006- -6:05 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:05 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\n[Note : Councilmember Daysog arrived at 6:35 p.m. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(06-025) - Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Citizens for a Megaplex-Free Alameda V. City of Alameda.\nRosemary McNally stated that she was not a party to the lawsuit,\nbut had followed the Cineplex project since the Historical Advisory\nBoard meeting in 2005; cited the Indemnificatior Clause in the\nDisposition and Development Agreement with the developer, Kyle\nConnor questioned why the City is paying for Mr. Connor's defense\ncosts when the City says it does not have enough money for\nservices.\nThe City Attorney responded that the developer has his own\nattorney; the City has a large investment risk in the project and\nchose to retain its own counsel in order to best protect its own\ninterests in the project.\nMs. McNally thanked the Council for clarification and submitted\ncopy of her statement for the record.\n(06-026) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators :\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:55 p.m. and reconvened the\nSpecial Meeting at 9:45 p.m.\n(06-027) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney. .\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nSpecial Meeting\n1\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 13, "text": "and Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference with Legal\nCounsel, the Council discussed the case and stated staff would\nprovide an Off-Agenda Report on the upcoming process; regarding\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation, the Council obtained briefing from labor negotiators;\nregarding City Attorney, the Council gave direction to labor\nnegotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 10:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\n2\nAlameda City Council\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 17, 2006 -7:29 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:02 p.m.\nCouncilmember Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent :\nouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent : None.\nAgenda Item\n(06-028) Resolution No. 13919, \"Authorizing Open Market Purchase\nPursuant to Section 3-15 of the Alameda City Charter for the Repair\nof the Bay Farm Island Seawall Dike, along Shoreline Park, and\nAuthorizing the City Manager to Enter into Such an Agreement. \"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the requested funding was\nfor interim repair, to which the Public Works Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when full repair would be\ncompleted and what the plan was for preventive maintenance.\nThe Public Works Director responded the schedule for the full\nrepair was being reviewed; larger ripraps would be added to\nstrengthen the armoring of the slope; the design process would take\napproximately two to three months because a lot of surveying is\nrequired; funding is the big issue; the estimate is approximately\n$2 million for the riprap.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether information has been provided to the\npublic.\nThe Public Works Director responded the area has been barricaded,\nand warning signs have been posted.\nMayor Johnson requested that additional signs be posted along\nShoreline Park to provide information on the seawall restoration\nand to thank the public for their patience.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the damage occurred because of high\ntides ; inquired whether further deterioration was evident.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 15, "text": "The Public Works Director stated the entire length of the seawall\nhas been inspected; the interim repair would take care of\nsignificant deterioration; the intent is to beat the high tides\nforecasted for the end of the month.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether erosion occurred in other\nareas.\nThe Public Works Director responded the $500,000 should cover all\nareas that need repair.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether periodic inspections are conducted.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated future\nperiodic inspections are being considered.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the Governor added Alameda\nCounty to the disaster list; inquired whether funding would be\navailable for the repairs.\nThe Public Works Director responded that staff was working with the\nCounty and Office of Emergency Services (OES) to secure Federal\nEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the deterioration was\nstandard or the result of circumstances.\nThe Public Works Director responded that the current situation is\nextremely accelerated; a resident raised the issue in March; staff\nexamined the area in April and determined that immediate attention\nwas not needed.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated hopefully budget issues would not\nprevent performing a temporary fix if the City witnessed some\ndeterioration.\nMayor Johnson stated that issues should be called to the Council's\nattention if something similar arises.\nCouncilmember deHaan thanked the Public Works Director for planting\ntrees in front of Alameda College on Appezzato Parkway.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-01-31", "page": 16, "text": "Adjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 8:11 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 17, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-01-31.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:21 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-047 - ) Proclamation declaring January 30, 2005 through April 4,\n2005 as A Season for Nonviolence in the City of Alameda.\nMayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Pat Dilks\nof the Children's Learning Center representing the Youth\nCollaborative.\nMs. Dilks thanked the Council for their support.\n(05-048) - Update on the new main library project.\nThe Project Manager submitted a timeline and provided an update on\nthe project.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the construction budget would be\nsubmitted, to which the Project Manager responded that the\nconstruction budget was set by the $17.4 million contract.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the spending schedule would be\nprovided, to which the Project Manager responded that a schedule\nwould be provided this month.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the steel prices were locked in\nbefore the end of 2004, to which the Project Manager responded in\nthe affirmative; stated the rebar subcontractor withdrew because of\nbankruptcy.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 05-049],\nand the Resolution Authorizing the Application to the Metropolitan\nTransportation Commission [paragraph no. 05-054] were removed from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 2, "text": "the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n(05-049) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council meetings\nheld on January 18, 2005.\nMayor Johnson requested that the minutes of the Regular City\nCouncil Meeting should be revised to reflect that she was not\nabsent.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Special City Council\nMeeting and revised Regular City Council Meeting.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-050) Ratified bills in the amount of $4,627,942.61.\n(*05-051) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Investment Report\nfor period ending December 31, 2004. Accepted.\n(*05-052) Recommendation to approve Agreement with Ameresco Half\nMoon Bay, LLC for the purchase of power from Landfill Gas\nGeneration. Accepted.\n(*05-053) Resolution No. 13812, \"Authorizing the Application to\nCalTrans for a Bicycle Transportation Account Grant for\nImprovements to the Bay Farm Island Bicycle Bridge Approach.\nAdopted.\n(05-054) Resolution No. 13813, \"Authorizing the Application to the\nMetropolitan Transportation Commission for a Regional Bicycle and\nPedestrian Program Grant for the Cross Alameda Trail Phase I.\"\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the purchase of the right-of-\nway for the linear park was part of the Alameda Belt Line property,\nto which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Attorney stated that the Alameda Belt Line litigation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 3, "text": "involves the exercise of the right to purchase the entire Alameda\nBelt Line property, not just the 22-acre site.\nMayor Johnson stated that the purchase of the right-of-way for the\nlinear park was separate from the down zoned area [Measure D,\n2000].\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the curb on Ralph Appezzato\nMemorial Parkway was under the City's jurisdiction, to which the\nPublic Works Director responded the street from curb to curb is\nwithin the public right-of-way\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether improvements have been made\nto the area, to which the Public Works Director responded that\nthere were no improvements on the south side of Appezzato Memorial\nParkway because the City only owns the area to the curb; the\nAlameda Belt Line property runs from the back of the curb to the\nfence line.\n ouncilmember deHaan moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*05-055) Resolution No. 13814, \"Approving Submittal of a Revised\nApplication, Incorporating a Flat Parking Lot and Budget\nAdjustments, to the Office of Library Construction Under the\nCalifornia Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library\nConstruction and Renovation Bond Act of 2000. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n( 05-056) - Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning\nBoard's approval of Design Review, DR04-0101, to allow a 5,300\nsquare foot new commercial building (veterinary hospital) to\nreplace approximately 2,000 square feet of commercial buildings,\nwith a parking lot expansion to 23 spaces; and adoption of related\nresolution. The property is located at 1410 Everett Street in the\nC-C Community Commercial and R-5 Hotel Residential Zoning\nDistricts. Appellant: John Barni, Jr. Applicant : Park Centre\nAnimal Hospital.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief overview of the project.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether rezoning from R-5 to C-C would\nmake the existing property conform to the General Plan designation,\nto which the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 4, "text": "4\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 5, "text": "receive notification live within 300 feet regardless of the Everett\nStreet or Central Avenue address.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether someone would be unaware that\nCentral Avenue was involved if they did not review the plans, to\nwhich the Supervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether use permits run with the\ncurrent proprietor or with the property, to which the Supervising\nPlanner responded that use permits run with the land; stated use\npermits do not change the zoning.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the notice is valid, to which the\nCity Attorney responded that the notice complies with the\nrequirements of the Municipal Code and the current practices of the\nPlanning Department.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested clarification on the dog walking\npractices.\nMr. Busse stated that currently the dogs are walked on the existing\nbank property as well as in the neighborhood.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether dogs are boarded, to which\nMr. Busse responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there is design latitude on\nthe Central Avenue side, to which Mr. Busse responded enhancements\nhave been made; additional latticework is being added.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he was concerned with trees covering\nthe sign.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether landscaping was one foot\nfrom the lot line and five feet from the edge of the sidewalk.\nMr. Busse responded that there would be a five foot two inch\nlandscape buffer from the existing sidewalk.\nMayor Johnson stated that she supports the project Design Review\nis the only issue before the Council; good improvements have been\nmade.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned about the\nnotification.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the project should be re-\nnoticed, and Design Review should be sent back to the Planning\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 6, "text": "Board.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she would like to go on record as\nliking the design, especially the changes the architect has made\n;\nshe is concerned about the noticing issue.\nMayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor Gilmore; not\nincluding the address on Central Avenue in the notice may have\ncaused confusion; she feels badly for the business because of the\nproject delay.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that speakers mentioned that the design\ndoes not fit the residential character of the neighborhood;\narguments could be made that the design is an improvement over the\nexisting structure; the project is a positive step.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved that the matter be sent back to the\nPlanning Board for proper notification.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmembers Matarrese, Gilmore, Daysog, and Mayor Johnson went\non record that the only reason the matter was being sent back to\nthe Planning Board was to allow proper notification.\n(05-057 - ) Public Hearing to consider Amendment to Zoning Map to\nrezone approximately 7,800 square feet (1/5 acre) at 1410 Everett\nStreet, APN 070-170-15, from R-5 Hotel Residential to C-C Community\nCommercial; and\n(05-057A) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning\nCertain Property within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning\nOrdinance No. 1277, N.S., from R-5 (General Residential Zoning\nDistrict to C-C (Community Commercial Zoning District, for that\nProperty Located at 2507 Central Avenue at Everett Street. Not\nintroduced.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In favor of rezoning) : Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation; Steve Busse, Park Centre Animal Hospital.\nOpponents (Not in favor of rezoning) : John Barni, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 7, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore moved that the matter be sent back to the\nPlanning Board for proper notification.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 10:05 p.m. and reconvened the\nRegular City Council Meeting at 10:21 p.m.\n*\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to direct the City\nManager to prepare an ordinance [paragraph no. 05-058] would be\nheard before the discussion regarding options for relocation\nassistance [paragraph no. 05-059].\n(05-058 - ) Recommendation to direct the City Manager to prepare an\nordinance establishing a Theatre Combining District in Chapter XXX,\nDevelopment Regulations.\nLars Hanson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) , stated that\nPSBA supports establishment of the ordinance.\nMayor Johnson announced that the following speakers are in favor\nbut would not comment Pauline Kelley, Alameda Abigail Wade,\nRegency Antiques; Nick Petrulakis, Books Inc. ; Elizabeth Pinkerton,\nDog Bone Alley; Gene Oh, Alameda Bicycle, Robb Ratto, PSBA.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved to approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog inquired whether accepting\nthe staff recommendation allows the Central Cinema to continue\noperating, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n(05-059) Discussion regarding options for relocation assistance\nlegislation and a temporary moratorium on all new construction,\ndemolition and condominium conversion in the \"West End Atlantic\nCorridor Area\" (bounded by Webster Street, Main Street, Pacific\nAvenue and Ralph J. Appezzato Memorial Parkway).\nProponents : Mosetta Rose London, Alameda; Donald Cummingham,\nAlameda ; Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association\n(HITA) ; Motoe Yamada, Alameda; Emily, Lin; Michael Wharton, Alameda\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 8, "text": "Unified School District i Gerbrehiwot Tesfandrias, Alameda Michael\nJohn Torrey, Alameda. Samya Ahmed, HITA; David de la Torre,\nAlameda; Lorraine Lilley, HITA; Tom Matthews, Renewed Hope; Lynette\nLee, Renewed Hope; Isolina Cadle, HITA; Michael Yoshii, Buena Vista\nUnited Methodist Church; Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda; Arnold\nFong, Alameda resident and RPO; Lily Lueng, Alameda.\nNeutral Dr. Mary Abu-saba, Alameda; Deborah James, Alameda; Craig\nMiott, Alameda.\nOpponents: Jack Sullivan, Alameda resident and Rental Property\nOwner (RPO) i Jun Saraspi, RPO; John Goerl, RPO; Shirley Green,\nAlameda resident and RPO; Paul Anders, Alameda resident and RPO;\nMerle Pagel, Alameda resident and RPO; Maewood Zarback, Alameda\nresident and RPO; Roger Armstrong, RPO; Rosemary McNally, Alameda\nresident and RPO; Angela McIntyre, Alameda Association of Realtors;\nHarry McMillan, RPO; Ann O'Rourke, Alameda resident and RPO; former\nCouncilmember Hadi Monsef, Alameda; Chris Mazala, Mason Management\nDon Camara, Alameda resident and RPO; Lisa Fowler, Gallagher and\nLindsey Eileen Walker, Alameda resident and President of Alameda\nAssociation of Realtors; Ann Bracci, Alameda; Dave Gallagher, RPO;\nHanna Fry, Alameda resident and RPO; Mark Palmer, Alameda resident\nand RPO; Ellen Purdy, Harbor Bay Realty; Ed Murphy, Alameda\nresident and RPO; Arch Woodliff, Alameda resident and RPO; Suha\nErdem, Alameda resident and RPO; Cynthia Ridenour, Alameda resident\nand RPO; former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda; Thomas Cooke,\nBonanza Apartments; Carol Martino, Realty World Martino Associates;\nKathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association; Steve Edrington, Rental\nHousing Association of Northern Alameda County.\n(05-060) After speaker Cynthia Ridenour, Councilmember Matarrese\nmoved that the Regular Meeting be continued past midnight.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that as a graduate student he worked on\na project analyzing the impacts of rent control in Berkeley and\nSanta Monica; in both cases, rent control laws did not help the\npeople; he is concerned that someone would use the proposed\nordinance to file a lawsuit for reasons having little or nothing to\ndo with the Harbor Island Apartment situation; the emphasis of the\nproposed ordinance is wrong by focusing on landlord/tenant\nrelations; involvement in landlord/tenant relations is done\ninformally via the Rent Review Advisory Committee; requested that\nstaff, landlords and residents work together to develop something\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 9, "text": "other than an ordinance that speaks to short notice mass evictions\nand voluntary relocation assistance.\nMayor Johnson requested staff to determine how local and State\nstatutes could be put to better use; stated the maintenance and\nquality of life issues at the Harbor Island Apartments could have\nbeen handled better.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he has not met one person who\nhas defended the 15 Asset Management Group's action; requested\nstaff to review whether there is a hole in the condominium\nconversion ordinance and whether there is an attempt to circumvent\nthe ordinance; the proposed ordinance does not address the impact\nof not providing a reasonable, fair amount of public notice for\nvacating the complex completely; the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict is trying to close a gap of over a million dollars ;\nperhaps the 15 Asset Management Group should pay an impact fee; the\nHarbor Island Apartment issue will not be resolved soon; encouraged\ninvestment and improvement in the West End; stated process should\ninclude social impacts.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the goal should be preventing a Harbor\nIsland Apartment situation from happening again; the question is\nhow to go about it; the City needs to work to enforce current laws\nthe former residents suffered greatly; West End residents need to\nknow that they are just as important as residents in other sections\nof the City; landlords have stated that the proposed ordinance will\nnot work from their standpoint i challenged the landlords to work\nwith the City and the residents and come up with a way of\npreventing the situation from happening again; stated steps need to\nbe put in place to have it happen sooner rather than later.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that redeveloping the West End will\ncause displacement; a good social eye is needed for what is\noccurring the City knew that something was going astray; a wedge\nhas been driven between the landlords and tenants; the size of the\nHarbor Island Apartments makes it difficult to manage; the property\ncannot afford to be kept out of the rental market; that he does not\nbelieve the ordinance or moratorium are the answer.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the concerns that people had regarding\nmandatory relocation assistance could be the same concerns\nregarding mandatory impacts; the City needs to be creative in\nfollowing through with a voluntary relocation program.\nMayor Johnson stated that she had no expectation that the Council\ncould create an ordinance tonight ; she does not think the drafted\nordinances are the answers; stated that she concurs with Vice Mayor\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 10, "text": "Gilmore's challenge to have property owners and residents work\ntogether and provide suggestions; no one in Alameda has not been\noffended by the actions of 15 Asset Management Group.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he is looking for some type of\nquantifiable action in going forward; over the last year and a\nhalf, Council had knowledge of the crime situation around the\ncomplex; Housing Authority reports stated Section 8 units were\nbeing decertified because standards were not being met; requested\nthe City Manager to compile indicators such as crime, Code\nEnforcement complaints, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-\ncertification which would allow Council to set a policy on how to\nreact should there be another large complex that is spinning in the\nsame fashion as the Harbor Island Apartments situation.\nMayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that have not\nbeen strongly enforced to allow Council to set a policy on\nenforcement.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested staff to review the Harbor Island\nApartments in relation to Alameda Municipal Code Section 13-11.3\nMayor Johnson requested an inventory of ordinances that apply to\nAlameda, whether State or local.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would like to review how other\ncities have utilized the State ordinances and whether other cities\nhave been effective.\nMayor Johnson stated that it is important for the Council to set a\npolicy utilizing existing ordinances.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested feedback from staff on his draft\nvoluntary relocation assistance.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that going through the process has raised\npublic\nawarenessi a committee of tenant and landlord\nrepresentatives should be formed to keep the momentum going and\ndiscuss the issues; landlords have been reactionary to tenants'\nideas; landlords and tenants should work more cooperatively in\ndeveloping ideas for preventing the situation from occurring again.\nMayor Johnson requested that suggestions on the framework of the\ncommittee be brought back to Council at the next City Council\nmeeting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved that staff follow up on direction provided\ntonight.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 11, "text": "Counci lember Matarrese clarified that the motion was to direct\nstaff to: 1) provide a compilation of indicators relating to crime,\nCode Enforcement, and Housing Authority Section 8 de-certification\nwhich would enable the Council to develop a policy on how to react,\nand 2) provide a framework for a committee which would include\ndefining what happened at the Harbor Island Apartments and how to\nprevent the situation from happening again.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog's voluntary relocation\nassistance draft should be included.\nCounci lmember Daysog stated the proposed committee could review his\nsuggestion.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote -5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-061) Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda, stated the\nCity Attorney received a copy of the State law on rentals two years\nagoi noted Committees, except those she has chaired, often do not\nsunset on time; stated landlords would get together to respond to\nCouncilmember Gilmore's challenge [to come up with a something to\nprevent a Harbor Island Apartment situation from happening again]\n.\n(05-062) Judge Richard Bartalini, Alameda, thanked Councilmember\nDaysog for returning property he left in the Chambers at a previous\nmeeting.\n(05-063) Steve Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that\nhe could provide Council with copies of the rental housing laws.\n(05-064) Arch Woodliff, Alameda, noted that he chaired the\ncommittee which dealt with rent in 1974 and first founded the Rent\nReview Advisory Committee.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to the\nSocial Service Human Relations Board. [Partial term expiring June\n30, 2007]\nMayor Johnson nominated Dennis Hanna for appointment to the SSHRB.\n(05-066) - ) Vice Mayor Gilmore request staff to provide information on\nthe cost for filing an appeal; stated Mr. Barni indicated his\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 12, "text": "Lara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005 -6:45 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n( 05-044) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case : Younger-Wunar, Inc. V. City of Alameda.\n(05-045) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case: Gallagher & Burke, Inc. V City of Alameda.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Younger-Wunar Inc. V.\nCity of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions\nwere given to Legal Counsel; and regarding Gallagher & Burke, Inc.\nV. City of Alameda, the Council obtained briefing and instructions\nwere given to Legal Counsel.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 14, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION AND\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:27 P.M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 8:05 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Board Members\nDaysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, and\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nJOINT ACTION:\n(05-046CC/05-005CIC) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly\nFinancial Report and approve mid-year budget adjustments.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director stated that the report\nshows the revenues and expenditures for the first six months of the\nFiscal Year and recommended adjustments.\nThe Finance Director stated the report provides a snapshot view;\nmatters could get better or worse; the amended budget has a $4.8\nmillion deficit; a report on closing the deficit would be presented\nat the February 15 City Council Meeting; 45% of the estimated\nrevenues have been received; expenditures are at 43.5% of budget\nthe estimated fund balance is based on estimated revenues and\nappropriations.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog inquired how much of\nthe projected $13.4 million fund balance is designated, to which\nthe Finance Director responded approximately $8.5 million.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese inquired whether\nthere would be a budget adjustment due to the 43.5% run rate.\nThe Interim City Manager/Executive Director responded that a budget\nadjustment would be made that would equal the estimated overrun of\n$4.8 million.\nMayor/Chair Johnson stated the budget situation is a very serious\nproblem.\n  ouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member Daysog moved acceptance of\nthe staff recommendation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 15, "text": "Councilmember/Commissioner/BoardMember Matarrese seconded the\nmotion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION:\n05-006CIC) Resolution #05-133, \"Approving and Authorizing\nExecution of an Assigment and Assumption Agreement and First\nAmendment to Exclusive Negotiation Agreement between MovieTECS,\nInc. and the Community Improvement Commission of the City of\nAlameda. (2305 Central Avenue, Video Maniacs) Adopted.\nLars Hanson, President of the Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA), stated that PSBA supports the resolution; adoption of the\nresolution would be the first step toward restoring the historic\nAlameda theatre.\nDuane Watson encouraged building the parking structure.\nDebbie George, Alameda, urged adoption of the resolution.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA, thanked the Council for taking a historic step in\nmoving forward with the parking structure, the restoration of the\nAlameda theatre, and the new theatre complex.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nCommissioner deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner deHaan stated that the theatre\nproject has been a long time coming.\nChair Johnson stated that many people still do not believe that the\ntheatre project is moving forward; affirmative steps need to be\ntaken to let people know that the theatre is going to reopen.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nspecial meeting at 8:20 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary,\nCommunity\nImprovement\nCommission\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 16, "text": "Agenda for meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-01", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE ANNUAL ALAMEDA PUBLIC\nIMPROVEMENT CORPORATION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 1, 2005- -7:25 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Annual Meeting at 8:03 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nBoard Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nMINUTES\n(05 5-01) - Minutes of the Annual Alameda Public Improvement\nCorporation Meeting of February 3, 2004.\nBoard Member Daysog moved approval of the minutes.\nBoard Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Board Members Daysog, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Chair Johnson - 4. Abstentions : Board Member deHaan -\n1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the Annual\nMeeting at 8:04 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary, Alameda Public Improvement\nCorporation\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nAnnual Meeting\nAlameda Public Improvement Corporation\nFebruary 1, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:37 p.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5. [Note:\nMayor Johnson left the meeting at 9:02\np.m. to travel on City business. ]\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(05-072) Proclamation supporting the Navy League's efforts to\ndesignate the City of Alameda as an official \"Coast Guard City. \"\nMayor Johnson read the proclamation and presented it to Hadi Monsef\nand Barbara Price representing the Alameda Council of the Navy\nLeague. Ms. Price presented a book on the history of the Coast\nGuard to the Mayor and City on behalf of Coast Guard Admiral\nBreckenridge.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar with\na correction to the February 1, 2005 regular meeting minutes.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[ Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n( *05-073) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on February 1, 2005. Approved.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the February 1 regular\nmeeting minutes adjourn time be corrected to indicate a.m. instead\nof p.m.\n( *05-074) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,200,868.59.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 2, "text": "(*05-075) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the second calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.\n( *05-076) Resolution No. 13815, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. \"\nAdopted.\n(*05-077) Resolution No. 13816, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-01 (Marina Cove) .\nAdopted.\n(*05-078) Resolution No. 13817, \"Amending the International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Salary Schedule by\nEstablishing a Salary Range for the Position of Inventory Control\nClerk. \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-079) Resolution No. 13818, \"Appointing Dennis J. Hanna as a\nMember of the Social Service Human Relations Board.' Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.\nHanna with a Certificate of Appointment.\n(05 -080 - ) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode to Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five\nto Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created;\nComposition), 2-9.2 (Membership; Appointment; Removal) and 2-9.3\n(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission). Introduced.\nMayor Johnson stated that she suggested the membership increase\nbecause there is a lot of upcoming activity at the golf course,\nincluding the new clubhouse; having two more members would help\nwith the workload; the Golf Commission Chair supports the idea.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the golf course has become a large\noperation; the golf budget is over $5 million; there will be major\nchanges at the golf course that require financial overview in the\nnext few years.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission was\nlowered from nine to seven members; the Recreation and Park\nCommission has five members; inquired whether the membership of the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 3, "text": "Recreation and Park Commission should be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated the matter could be reviewed; commissions are\nestablished by ordinance and Council has flexibility to make\nchanges boards established by Charter would be difficult to\nchange.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated having seven members provides\nflexibility to bring people with different expertise aboard.\nMayor Johnson concurred the matter should be reviewed.\nVice Mayor Gilmore moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-081) Recommendation to award Contract in the amount of\n$2,110,000, including contingencies to Ghilotti Brothers, Inc. for\nPark Street Streetscape and Town Center Project, Phase I, No. P. W.\n10-02-13, and authorize the allocation of additional funds from the\nMerged Areas Bond Issuance of 2003.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA). stated the new\nstreetlights will look like 1927 streetlights on the outside, but\nare state-of-the-art inside; hopefully, a later phase to complete\nAlameda Avenue will happen quickly; urged Council to approve the\nContract.\nMayor Johnson stated that she is pleased with how well the Webster\nStreet Streetscape project is going; that she has not received any\ncomplaints.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City decided to replace the entire\nsidewalk on Webster Street; inquired how the decision was made\nregarding Park Street.\nThe Public Works Director responded the entire sidewalk on Park\nStreet is not being replaced due to cost and basements extending\ninto the public right of way; stated replacing the Park Street\nsidewalks would require roofs to be built above basements, which\nwould be very expensive; PSBA agrees with the approach.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 4, "text": "money by the end of March; the City can deposit the money and begin\nearning interest to mitigate the reduction.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City would sell bonds inquired\nhow the liability would be covered.\nThe Interim City Manager responded there would be no liability to\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 5, "text": "the City because the bondholders would demand insurance to cover\nany State default; Covenants and Conditions of the bond will state\nthe bondholders recourse is not to any cities involved, but to the\nState.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a default on the bonds would have no\nimpact on the cities, to which the City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore congratulated staff for the creative solution to\ndeal with the budget deficit for the current year and next year.\nMayor Johnson noted that Assemblywoman Chan thought the idea was\nvery interesting and a good strategy.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n( (05-083) Recommendation to accept budget adjustments to revenue\nand appropriations.\nThe Interim City Manager gave an overview of the budget\nadjustments.\nMayor Johnson inquired why there is a cost to be part of the\nAlameda County Emergency Medical Services (EMS) system.\nThe Interim City Manager responded the cost is for providing\nemergency medical coordination.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief stated the County provides quality assurance\noverview; every city in the County pays a fee to the County EMS,\nwhich is the medical authority responsible for administering\nlicenses, classes, and protocol the fee is for overhead and\nquality assurance.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City reviews the County EMS\nbudget, to which the Deputy Fire Chief responded the City receives\na copy of the budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether every city pays $500,000, to which\nthe Interim City Manager responded the fee charged is per parcel.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City has to pay for training, to\nwhich the Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 6, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the County sets policy.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded in the affirmative; stated the\nCounty reviews compliance with protocols and licensing.\nMayor Johnson stated the City should review the County's budget to\ndetermine why it is so expensive to be part of the system.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff could provide a report with\nmore detailed information and obtain a copy of the budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City provides more assistance in\nmutual aid outside Alameda or whether Alameda receives more mutual\naid assistance from outside agencies.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief responded the County requires the City to\nenter into a mutual aid Contract to have American Medical Response\n(AMR) provide backup AMR comes into town to backup Alameda and\nAlameda provides backup for AMR; the amount of assistance provided\nand received is probably about even; yesterday, paramedics were in\nOakland nine times because the trauma center was on bypass; often\ntimes it goes the other way; if paramedics are at a fire scene, AMR\ntakes all medical calls; noted when Alameda was ramping up the\nAdvanced Life Support (ALS) system, the City was receiving money\nback from the County contract.\nMayor Johnson stated the amount that the City can charge for\nambulance service is set by the County contract the City should\ncharge as much as insurance companies pay, which is often higher\nthan the cap set by the County the City should review the rates\ncharged for ambulance services and request the flexibility to\ncharge more to recover service costs from users.\nThe Deputy Fire Chief stated that the County sets the maximum\ncharge for transport and equipment used; the City is allowed to\ncharge a little more since Alameda is unique and citizens do not\npay a paramedic assessment; however, historically the City has not\ncharged more and only charges a prevailing rate.\nThe Interim City Manager continued reviewing budget adjustments.\nIn response to Councilmember Daysog's inquiry whether an increased\npermit fee could be charged for providing premium service since\nthere is such a high demand, the Interim City Manager stated there\nis an expedited permit fee and some developers have paid for an\noutside contract service that the City administers.\nThe Interim City Manager continued his review.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 7, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether neighborhood park directors\nwould remain, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe Interim City Manager completed his review; stated the total\nreduction in department budgets is $2,770,363; added to reductions\nin non-departmental areas, the total reduction is $6,295,983 the\nbudget expenditure cuts and decreased revenues have no impact on\nthe General Fund reserves for the fiscal year.\nMayor Johnson stated there was a $1.2 million deficit in December;\ninquired how the deficit has reached $4.8 million.\nThe Finance Director responded the budget adopted July 20 had\nexpenditures exceeding revenues by $1.6 million; revenues decreased\nanother $2 million because the 911 fee and Payment In Lieu of Taxes\n(PILOT) Return on Investment (ROI) were not adopted by the Council,\nresulting in a $3.2 million deficit; Council actions to appropriate\nfunds for the City Manager recruitment, Interim City Manager,\nChinatown agreement, and other activities had an approximately\n$256,000 impact.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether hiring additional\nFirefighters would have an impact on overtime.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that the five Firefighters would\nstart the academy March 15; there would be a cost of $322,000 in\nsalaries for the five Firefighters in the academyi there will not\nbe a net benefit for the current fiscal year.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be an impact in\nfuture years, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired the amount of the reserve that was\nrequired to be set aside.\nThe Interim City Manager responded there is a $2,453,743 set aside\nfor accrued vacation and $1,444,000 for post employment health; the\ntotal accrued liability is about $3.5 million of the reserves.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the general reserves are about $10\nmillion.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that after removing the $3.5\nmillion required in set aside and removing loans to other funds,\nthe amount remaining is $8.9 million; if action is not taken, the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 8, "text": "reserves could be used in 2 years; the federal and State\ngovernments have deficits other cities are making staff\nreductions, doing furloughs and closing City Hall one day per\nmonth; Alameda's financial problems are not unique the problem is\ndue to the State taking property taxes and the large increase in\nthe PERS contribution for retirements; since CalPERS investments\nhave not done well in the last few years, contributions have to be\nraised significantly.\nKevin Kennedy, City Treasurer, stated significant cuts are being\nmade without cutting services that citizens find vital; there has\nbeen a dramatic shift in the State's economy ; the budget has to be\nbrought in line with economic realities; the City might face\nequally or more difficult choices in the next budget the City\nneeds to focus on core services; the ten-year budget forecast will\nbe integral in forming the next budget the reserves do not allow\nthe City to postpone dealing with the situation.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Department Heads would have to\nimplement budget changes the budget would evolve over the next\nfour or five years; the City needs to be prepared.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated additional police dispatchers were\nneeded; inquired whether the positions are being filled to prevent\novertime and short staffing issues.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that he authorized filling two\npositions in dispatch; one or two more people might be hired, but\nhe is holding off until he is convinced additional staff is\nabsolutely required.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the open positions in\npolice and fire constitute a reduction in public safety out in the\nstreets.\nThe Interim City Manager responded that positions cannot be reduced\nin a department without recognizing that there will be an impact;\nboth the Fire Chief and Police Chief have made a concerted effort\nto have the least amount of impact to the citizens, such as a delay\nin processing abandoned vehicles; when the City does not backfill\nfollowing officer promotions, there will be an impact.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public should hear about the\nimpacts; there will be ramifications to service; five Firefighters\nwould be hired instead of eleven; inquired whether other vacancies\nare projected in the Fire Department.\nThe Interim City Manager responded only eleven vacancies are known.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 9, "text": "9\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is reluctant that the City\nhas to take these stepsi requested that staff monitor service\nlevels: if damage is being done and appropriations are needed,\ninformation should be brought to Council before the situation is an\nemergency the City is starting to nick away at the meat of its\nservices; that he does not differentiate between hard and soft\npriorities; Council has laid out priorities the park and library\nservices are intangibles that prevent the need for additional\npolice officers in some cases; the situation should be monitored to\nensure the City is not putting itself into an unrecoverable hole.\nActing Mayor Gilmore complimented staff for the clarity and brevity\nof the report; commended the Alameda Journal for top coverage of\nthe issue; stated citizens need to be aware; Council is making the\nbest decision given the resources available; the City needs to\ncontinue to get out the word because sooner or later the average\ncitizen will be impacted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that the Council consider\ndirection to review terminating the police boat water services;\nstated upwards of 3,500 berths are occupied by boats that pay\nproperty taxes; that he assumes the fire boat is in jeopardy as\nwell; that he would like to have options to help find an\nalternative funding source, whether it be a surcharge per slip or\nsome other service levy that can be presented to the public; the\nmatter should be brought back to the Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested a report on the ARRA $2.5 million\nbudget for public safety; stated that he understands the one-time\nexpenditure will end June 30; in addition to the $1. 4 million hole\nin the City's budget, there will be a $2.5 million hole in the ARRA\nbudget next year; that he understands the Interim City Manager is\nreviewing alternatives.\nThe Interim City Manager stated staff is very concerned about the\nARRA budget; that he has discussed the matter with the Development\nServices Director; steps are being taken to pare down the ARRA\nbudget as much as possible, as soon as possible; the current ARRA\nbudget cannot be sustained; one or two months into the next fiscal\nyear, keeping the operation going will be problematic.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated problems in the ARRA budget could seep\ninto to General Fund budget.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there would be a review of\nthe ARRA budget shortly, to which the Interim City Manager\nresponded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 11, "text": "ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-084) - Michael John Torrey, Alameda, noted a Calgrant workshop\nwould be held February 22 and a community meeting would be held\nFebruary 23 to discuss extraordinary maintenance projects around\nthe West End.\n(05-085) Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association, encouraged\nresidents and workers in Alameda to shop in Alameda stated sales\ntax revenues need to increase.\n(05-086) Reginald James, West Alameda Teen Club, invited everyone\nto attend the West Alameda Teen Club black history basketball event\nFebruary 24 from 6:00 to 9:00 p.m. at Chipman Middle School.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-087) Acting Mayor Gilmore stated an Association of Bay Area\nGovernments meeting on April 28 in San Francisco is about Casinos\non the Bay Area Landscape; suggested that a Councilmember attend\nthe meeting or staff attend, if a Councilmember cannot, to listen\nto the discussion.\n(05-088 ) Councilmember Daysog stated the last representative to\nthe League of California Cities was Barbara Kerr; that he has been\ninvolved in the East Bay Division employer subcommittee; that he\nwould be willing to be the City's representative.\nActing Mayor Gilmore stated the matter would have to be placed on a\nfuture agenda.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 9:18 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 12, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:10 P.M.\nActing Mayor/Chair Gilmore convened the Special Joint Meeting at\n6:20 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmember/Commissioners\nDaysog,\ndeHaan, Matarrese, and Acting Mayor/Chair\nGilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor/Chair Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(05-070CC/05-007CIC Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing\nLitigation Name of cases Alameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda,\nAlameda Belt Line V. City of Alameda, and City of Alameda V.\nAlameda Belt Line.\nPrior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor/Chair Johnson\nannounced that a briefing was given by the City Attorney's office.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor/Chair Gilmore\nadjourned the Special Joint Meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, Community Improvement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-02-15", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 15, 2005- -6:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:45 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Matarrese\nand Acting Mayor Gilmore - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(05-071) Conference with Labor Negotiator; Agency Negotiators:\nHuman Resources Director and Craig Jory Employee Organizations:\nManagement and Confidential Employees Association, International\nBrotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Police Association Non-\nSworn.\nPrior to the Regular City Council Meeting, Mayor Johnson announced\nthat the Council obtained a briefing and instructions were given to\nLabor Negotiators.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Gilmore adjourned the\nmeeting at 7:25 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 15, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-02-15.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-03-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 1, 2005- -7:30 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the meeting at 8:08 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-091) - Mayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Approving\nParcel Map 8574 [paragraph no. 05-096] would be addressed at\na\nlater date.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the Consent Calendar,\nexcluding the Resolution Approving Parcel Map 8574 [paragraph no.\n05-096].\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n( *05-092) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Community\nImprovement Commission (CIC) and Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority Meeting held on February 1, 2005; and the Special Joint\nCity Council and CIC Meeting, the Special City Council Meeting and\nthe Regular City Council Meeting held on February 15, 2005.\nApproved.\n( *05-093) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,312,454.99.\n(*05-094) Recommendation to accept the Quarterly Sales Tax Report\nfor the third calendar quarter of 2004. Accepted.\n(\n*05-095) Recommendatior to authorize the Mayor, City Manager\nand/or designee to send letters opposing the proposed elimination\nof the Community Development Block Grant Program and related\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2005\n1", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-03-01", "page": 2, "text": "federal programs in the Administration's 2006 budget. Accepted.\n(05-096) Adoption of Resolution Approving Parcel Map No. 8574 for\na Sixteen Lot Subdivision at Harbor Bay Business Park. Not heard.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-097) - Resolution No. 13820, \"Commending Recreation and Park\nDirector Suzanne Ota for Her Contributions to the City of Alameda.\nAdopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson read the Resolution and presented it to Suzanne Ota;\nstated that Ms. Ota has done an outstanding job.\nThe Interim City Manager presented Ms. Ota with flowers.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she started her service to the City\nworking with the Recreation and Park Department she always\nappreciated Ms. Ota's enthusiasm, energy and \"can do\" spirit.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that Ms. Ota brings so much joy to so\nmany parts of the community.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the City would miss Ms. Ota; as\na citizen as well as a Councilmember, he appreciates the great job\nthat Ms. Ota has done.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that Ms. Ota should feel very\ncomfortable in her accomplishments.\n(05-098) Public Hearing to consider rezoning ZA 05-0001/R 05-0001\nZoning Text Amendment/Reclassification to add a Theater Overlay\nDistrict and rezoning certain properties to include the Theater\nOverlay Districti and\n(05-098A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode by Amending Section 30-2 (Definitions) ; Amending Subsection\n30-3.2 (Combining Districts) ; Adding a New Subsection 30-4.22 (T-\nTheater Combining District) ; and Repealing Subsection 30-6.23(2) (b)\nof Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) and Reclassifying and\nRezoning Certain Properties Within the City of Alameda to Include\nthe Theater Combining District. Continued to March 15, 2005.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2005\n2", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-03-01", "page": 3, "text": "(05-099) Establishment of a Task Force that will propose strategies\nto prevent future mass evictions from rental housing complexes in\nthe City of Alameda.\nThe Interim City Manager outlined the suggested structure and\nmission of the Task Force; stated the Task Force would meet on a\nregular basis and report back to the Council within 90 days.\nCarol Martino, Alameda, stated that she would like to serve on the\nTask Force.\nSteven Edrington, Rental Housing Association, stated that the\nmatter should not overly politicized to ensure progress is made and\nthere is a balanced committee.\nKathy Lautz, Apartment Owners Association, volunteered to serve on\nthe Task Force.\nLorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenants Association, stated that new\nlaws are necessary to protect tenants; suggested that the committee\nhave two Harbor Island Tenant Association representatives and two\nar-large tenants.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the nominations would be made.\nMayor Johnson responded that she would like to receive input from\nCouncil; that Council should submit names for potential Task Force\nmembers.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there should be a specific period of\ntime for application submittals.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Task Force would be an informal\ncommittee, to which the Assistant City Attorney responded in the\naffirmative.\n(05-100) Ordinance NO. 2936, \"Amending the Alameda Municipal Code\nto Increase the Composition of the Golf Commission from Five to\nSeven Members by Amending Subsections 2-9.1 (Commission Created\nComposition), 2-9.2 (Membership Appointment ; Removal) and 2-9.3\n(Voting) of Section 2-9 (City Golf Commission) Finally passed.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved final passage of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nMarch 1, 2005\n3", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-03-01.pdf"}