{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - - MAY 17, 2005 - - 7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 8:15 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent :\nCouncilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(05-227)\nMayor Johnson announced that the Resolution Declaring\nSupport for Measure A [paragraph no. 05-228] would be addressed\nfirst; and next, the Resolution Recognizing the Selection of the\nCity of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City [paragraph no. 05-\n229] would be addressed along with the welcome and presentation\nhonoring Friendship City delegation [paragraph no. 05-229A].\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(05-228) Resolution No. 13939, \"Declaring Support for Measure A,\nAlameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Measure. Adopted.\nMichael McMahon, School Board President, stated voters approved a\n$109 parcel tax in 2001, which gave the schools an additional $1. 8\nmillion; the Board is requesting that the Council adopt a\nresolution supporting expansion of the tax for the next seven\nyears.\nAmy Costa, District Director for Senator Don Perata, stated Senator\nPerata could not be present due to budget negotiations; conveyed\nSenator Perata's support for Measure A; State funding has been\nvolatile; Measure A would provide funding stability to the school\ndistrict.\nRichard Heaps, Alameda Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Council\nPresident and 2001 Measure A Oversight Committee Member, stated\nMeasure A has the support of the PTA Council; the Oversight\nCommittee has seen the results of reduced class sizes and other\nprograms supported by the 2001 Measure A funding, and would like to\nsee the funding continue and expand.\nRon Mooney, Alamedans for Better Schools Co-Chair, urged adoption\nof the resolution; thanked the Councilmembers for their individual\nsupport; stated school funding is set by the State; the Measure\nprovides funding that the District uses to support critically\nimportant programs noted an argument was not filed against the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 2, "text": "Measure.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the schools have an impact on the\nwhole City; the funding will keep programs in place and forestall\nany possibility of outside control, which would consist of the\nCounty or State telling Alameda how to run its school district.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated kids are owed a good, quality education;\nthe City cannot count on the State to provide funding.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the resolution is of vital interest to\nthe City.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated the quality of\neducation is one of the most important things in the City.\nMayor Johnson stated schools would face cuts if the Measure does\nnot pass Senator Perata is trying to equalize State funding of\neducation; school facilities in other communities are higher\nquality; the Alameda Unified School District has done an excellent\njob with the amount of funding it receives; she was impressed with\nthe teacher and students when she visited a second grade class at\nMiller School.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nSPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY AND REGULAR AGENDA ITEM\n(05-229) Welcome and presentation honoring Friendship City\ndelegation from Wuxi, China; and\n(05-229A) Resolution No. 13940, \"Recognizing the Selection of the\nCity of Wuxi, China as Alameda's Friendship City and Authorizing\nthe Mayor to Sign a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding the\nFormulation and Implementation of Sister City Relations. Adopted.\nJim Franz and Stuart Chan of the Social Service Human Relations\nBoard introduced interpreter Tu Zhongliang, Deputy Director, Wuxi\nMunicipal Foreign Affairs Office, who introduced the Wuxi\ndelegation: Wang Zhuping, Vice Chairman, Chinese People's Political\nConsultative Conference (CPPCC) ; Zhou Yonggeng, Secretary General\nCPPCC; Bian He, Deputy Secretary General CPPCC; and Jiang Guoliang,\nDirector of Study, Culture and History CPPCC.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 3, "text": "Mayor Johnson introduced the Friends of Wuxi Committee : Nancy Li,\nChair; Hans Wong, Vice-Chair; and Otto Huang, Honorary Chair.\nMayor Johnson read the resolution, which the translator also read\nin Chinese.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson and Wang Zhuping signed the Memorandum of\nUnderstanding (MOU) .\nMr. Zhuping stated he is happy to sign the MOU to establish sister\nCity relations with Alameda and hopes relationships will develop\nfurther.\nMayor Johnson stated the entire community is proud to be moving\nforward with the Sister City relationship, particularly residents\nof Chinese heritage and ancestry.\nThe delegation presented gifts to the City.\nMayor Johnson presented a pewter plate with the City seal.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to authorize\ninstallation of an All-Way Stop Control [paragraph no. 5-235 ] was\nremoved from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent 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( * 05-230 - ) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on May 3, 2005 and the Special City Council Meeting held on\nMay 4, 2005. Approved.\n( * 05-231) - Ratified bills in the amount of $3,161,657.93.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 4, "text": "(*05-232) Recommendation to accept Quarterly Sales Tax Report for\nthe Period Ending March 31, 2005 for sales transactions in the\nFourth Calendar Quarter of 2005. Accepted.\n( *05-233) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids for one animal control vehicle. Accepted.\n(*05-234) Recommendation to adopt Plans and Specifications and\nauthorize Call for Bids for Cyclic Sewer Repair Project, Phase 4,\nNo. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.\n(05-235) Recommendation to authorize installation of an All-Way -\nStop Control at the intersection of Santa Clara Avenue and Sherman\nStreet.\nDon Patterson, Alameda, stated that he opposes the four-way stop\nsign; the Transportation Technical Team (TTT) did not address the\nreal problem of why Sherman Street is operating as a major\nthoroughfare; the General Plan Traffic Element's goal and intent is\nto have a transportation plan with traffic controls and techniques\nthat direct and keep traffic on major streets; questioned how the\nCity can make decisions without the advice of a professional\ntraffic engineer on staff; stated said position has been vacant\nsince October 2003; urged Council to direct the Acting City Manager\nto hire a traffic engineer suggested the application be withdrawn;\nnoted the individual who filed the application has not participated\nin any of the public hearings and must not be very serious about\nthe request stated the stop sign should only be addressed in the\ncontext of a total transportation plan, not a band-aid approach\nthat would only exacerbate the problem by moving traffic faster\nalong Sherman Street.\nStanton Scott, Alameda, stated that he has witnessed many accidents\nat the intersection; increased traffic has become more aggressive;\nthat he supports some form of traffic controls; stop signs would be\ngood.\nMary Amen, Alameda, stated that she represents a group of Santa\nClara Avenue residents who are opposed to the stop sign; she\ngathered signatures in the four blocks directly affected; the\nresidents would like the City to implement traffic calming devices\nbefore deciding to have 7000 cars a day stop in front of homes,\nincluding 12 buses per hour; accident statistics dropped to one per\nyear after the City addressed visibility issues; buses and cars\ntravel at 40 miles per hour (mph) during peak times; cross traffic\ncould pass safely if cars traveled at the 25 mph speed limit; the\nU.S. Department of Transportation and CalTrans guidelines indicate\nstop signs should not be used for speed control; the Police\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 5, "text": "Department is called to ticket cars parked in red zones at all\ncorners of the intersection on a daily basis; submitted photographs\nof cars parked in the red zone.\nKathy Gardner, Alameda, stated the intersection does not have cross\nwalks; drivers on Santa Clara Avenue do not stop for pedestrians\nthere should be a stoplight, not a stop sign, at the intersection;\ndrivers on Sherman Street cannot see traffic on Santa Clara Avenue\nsomething needs to be done; there have been multiple accidents an\nall-way stop sign is not the best solution; crosswalks and pressure\nsensitive stoplights should be installed.\nThe Public Works Director stated the intersection meets the traffic\nvolume warrant and accident warrant; the TTT recognized that the\nstop sign would impact residents; Council is being requested to\napprove the all-way stop because it is the best short-term way to\naddress the traffic operation issues; the TTT recognized an all-way\nstop is not the best long-term solution; Public Works staff is to\nprovide long-term traffic operation safety at the intersection,\nincluding a review of installing a traffic signal or flashing\nyellow signal; Public Works will review how to improve traffic\ncirculation in the area, how to de-emphasize Sherman Street, and\ncoordination of traffic corridors.\nMayor Johnson stated that she has asked for an overall,\ncomprehensive review of the issue over the years, instead of\nputting in four-way stops when the City receives requests inquired\nwhat impact a four-way stop would have on Sherman Street would the\nstop encourage more traffic on Sherman Street; should the City\ndiscourage additional traffic on Sherman Street stated the City\nhas been trying to equalize traffic on Santa Clara, Lincoln and\nBuena Vista Avenues; inquired whether the proposed stop sign would\nput an unfair burden on Lincoln and Buena Vista Avenues; stated\nevery street in Alameda is a neighborhood; pushing traffic from one\nstreet to another is not fair; a comprehensive review is needed to\naddress traffic issues; that she wants a better sense of impacts\n[before proceeding with a stop sign]; that she agrees with Santa\nClara Avenue residents because she would not want cars and buses\nstopping and starting in front of her house.\nThe Public Works Director stated the Public Works Department is in\nthe process of completing a Transportation Master Plan (TMP) which\nwould strategically review how the City should assign traffic\nstreet by street.\nMayor Johnson stated both residents speaking in support of some\nform of traffic control are willing to consider other methods; one\nstated a four-way stop sign is not the best way; if staff is\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 6, "text": "working on a comprehensive strategic plan and there has only been\none accident each of the last four years, Council should postpone\nreview until information from the strategic plan is available.\nThe Public Works Director stated there is a concern that since all\nway stop warrants are met , the City might open itself up to\nliability.\nMayor Johnson stated there would be many more four-way stop signs\nif the City studied every intersection to determine whether\nwarrants are met.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about whether the City\nAttorney wished to address liability, the City Attorney stated not\nin public; holding the matter over would not be a problem.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he travels on Sherman Street; a\nnumber of accidents are probably not reported; that he has\nwitnessed accidents ; lateral corridors are impacted when vehicles\ntravel to the South Shore area; vehicles travel 40 mph down Santa\nClara Avenue; crossing the intersection is a challenge; hopefully,\ntraffic can be diverted [off of Sherman Street] at some point.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether staff has data on whether\npeak traffic on Sherman Street has changed; stated there are\nprobably younger families in the Gold Coast now; Sherman Street\ntraffic volumes might be increasing because it is probably easier\nfor workers to commute down Sherman Street rather than traveling\ndown Constitution Way and Eighth Street.\nMayor Johnson stated analysis of Councilmember Daysog's idea would\nbe interesting to review and is why the City needs to pay attention\nto the impacts of stop signs; Constitution Way should handle more\ntraffic; the City should be encouraging drivers to use Constitution\nWay; the City should review whether drivers are discouraged from\nusing Constitution Way because of the traffic controls.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated Constitution Way narrows down to one\nlane at Eighth Street there is a bottleneck on Eighth Street at\nSanta Clara and Central Avenues at commute hours, which makes it\nmore convenient to use alternate routes, such as Sherman Street.\nMayor Johnson stated the convenience created could be a result of\nthe City's traffic controls and roadway configuration and is the\nreason the City needs to be strategic and design how people get\naround and off Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Sherman Street becomes a bypass to get\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 7, "text": "onto Grand Street to travel to South Shore; drivers try to find the\neasiest path; for example, changes on Buena Vista Avenue are\ncausing Pacific Avenue to become a major road; everything has\nsecondary impacts; that he understands the concerns about a four-\nway stop; however, a measure of control is needed [at Santa Clara\nAvenue and Sherman Street]\nThe Public Works Director stated Councilmember Daysog's idea has\nnot been reviewed; data could be analyzed; staff reviewed the\ntraffic characteristio on Sherman Street; the average daily volume\nalong Sherman Street is 5,500 vehicles at Buena Vista Avenue, 3,100\nat Pacific Avenue and 2,500 at Santa Clara Avenue the grid system\nis designed to filter people and is working; both Sherman Street\nand Santa Clara Avenue are minor streets; traffic volumes on Santa\nClara Avenue are higher than Sherman Street; since volumes on Santa\nClara Avenue are acceptable, then volumes on Sherman Street must\nalso be acceptable.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Santa Clara Avenue is wider than\nSherman Street, to which the Public Works Director responded in the\naffirmative. stated Santa Clara Avenue is designated as a minor\nstreet in the General Plan.\nMayor Johnson stated Sherman Street should not be treated the same\nas Santa Clara Avenue as far as traffic loads.\nThe Public Works Director stated that he agrees there needs to be a\nstrategic plan; the all-way stop is the best option for now with\nthe funding available; noted Council approved funding to complete a\nPedestrian Plan tonight, which is an element of the TMP .\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City should do anything possible\nto decrease the volume of traffic on Sherman Street; the character\nof Sherman Street is different than Santa Clara Avenue; the biggest\nproblem is the excessive speed on Santa Clara Avenue; suggested the\nPolice Department put together a program which tickets people\ntraveling above the speed limit on Santa Clara Avenue to slow down\ntraffic; stated most of the accidents are probably cause by\nexcessive speed, rather than lack of a stop sign on Santa Clara\nAvenue; the City should review what can be done in the short term\nto encourage people to take other north/south streets, such as\nConstitution Way and Grand Street; noted the intersection is a\nblock away from Mastick Senior Center suggested that Council\npostpone the decision until there are answers about what can be\ndone to reduce the load on Sherman Street in the short term.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council should wait; Council should\ndirect staff to review other ways to remedy the problem at the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 8, "text": "intersection and review whether traffic would be pushed to Lincoln\nand Buena Vista Avenues before a four-way stop sign is installed\nthe traffic lights on Constitution Way should be timed to prevent\nbottlenecking and encourage drivers to use it.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated speakers mentioned that the City\ndoes not have a certified traffic engineer requested staff to\ncomment on the matter.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted there have been two pedestrian deaths on\nConstitution Way, which should be kept in mind; stated there should\nbe a greater review of the data; requested a comparison with\nprevious levels to determine whether Gold Coast residents are\ncommuting down Sherman Street.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the problem is traffic traveling to the\nGold Coast or South Shore filters down Sherman Street, as well as\nBay and Saint Charles Streets, to avoid the bottleneck on Eighth\nStreet.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted people are using other routes because\nGrand Street is becoming a bottleneck in the morning a remedy is\nneeded while waiting for the traffic study; police activity is\ntemporary; pedestrian crosswalk paddles and blinking lights work\nwell and should be considered; the intersection was a high priority\nfor a traffic signal fifteen years ago; a solution is needed.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with Councilmember deHaan's\nsuggestion to install pedestrian paddles; requested the liability\nissue be addressed related to postponement.\nThe Public Works Director stated paddles could not be installed\nuntil there are crosswalks at the intersection; Public Works would\nneed at least four weeks to compile data requested by Council.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of postponing the matter.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the motion included direction for\nstaff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by the\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Daysog amended the motion to include direction to\nstaff to review alternative remedies and other issues raised by\nCouncil.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese requested that police\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 9, "text": "officers begin enforcement in the area immediately to slow down\ntraffic while analysis is being completed.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the speed board [radar\ntrailer] retains data, to which the Public Works Director responded\nin the negative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the equipment has the capacity to\nretain information, to which the Public Works Director responded in\nthe negative.\nMayor Johnson stated Oakland's equipment has messages, such as :\n\"please drive slowly this our neighborhood\" or \"children at play;\nsuggested use of the radar trailer and, if effective, the purchase\nof additional radar trailers.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated other cities have permanent speed\ndisplay devices.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff applied for grants and may\nhave received funding for a smaller device showing traveling speed\non Lincoln Avenue; suggested staff be authorized to proceed with\nputting up pedestrian and speed limit signs, along with the\nenforcement and radar trailer.\nMayor Johnson stated that Council would not object to staff taking\nsaid actions; drivers forget everywhere in Alameda is someone's\nneighborhood.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\n( *05-236) Resolution No. 13941, \"Authorizing the use of Measure B\nCountywide Discretionary Fund Grant from Alameda County\nTransportation Improvement Authority (ACTIA) and Matching Funds\nfrom the City's Local Measure B Allocation to Complete a Citywide\nPedestrian Plan. Adopted.\n(*05-237) Resolution No. 13942, \"Extending Period for Providing Low\nand Moderate Income Housing Pursuant to Health and Safety Code\nSection 33334.16 for 30 Units Within the Bachelor Officers'\nQuarters at Alameda Point. Adopted.\n( *05-238) Resolution No. 13943, \"Resolution of Intention to Levy an\nAnnual Assessment on the Alameda Business Improvement Area of the\nCity of Alameda for FY 2005-06 and Set a Public Hearing for June 7,\n2005 \" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 10, "text": "(*05-239) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal\nCode to Increase the Composition of the Recreation and Park\nCommission from Five to Seven Members by Amending Subsections 2-7.2\n(Membership; Appointment ; Removal). 2-7.3 (Qualification: Voting of\nSection 2-7 (City Recreation and Park Commission) Introduced.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(05-240 ) Public Hearing to establish Proposition 4 Limit\n(Appropriation Limit for Fiscal Year 2005-06; - and\n(05-241) Resolution No. 13944, \"Establishing Appropriations Limit\nfor Fiscal Year 2005-06. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-242) Public Hearing to consider collection of Delinquent\nBusiness License Fees via the Property Tax Bills.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nHuong Anh Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated the company has\nbeen closed since 1996 and does not have a contractor license.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Silver contacted the Finance\nDepartment, to which Ms. Silver responded in the affirmative;\nstated the Finance Department stated paperwork was not adequate and\nSOS Urethane Foam Roofing has been listed in the telephone book.\nSherman Silver, SOS Urethane Foam Roofing, stated that he shut down\nthe roofing company ; that he is keeping his license with the State\ncontractors board until he dies; he removed the sign in his front\nyard tonight; outlined his medical condition; stated he is not\nroofing anymore.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council could vote on the rest and\nhold over SOS Roofing to allow staff to take a closer look, to\nwhich staff responded in the affirmative.\nIn response to Mr. Silver's question about review of his materials,\nMayor Johnson stated the Finance Director would review everything.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the motion was to exclude SOS\nUrethane Foam Roofing, to which Councilmember Matarrese responded\nin the affirmative.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the matter would come back to\nCouncil if additional action was necessary, to which staff\nresponded in the affirmative\n(05-243) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Historical\nAdvisory Board's approval of a Landscaping Plan for planting two\nCoast Live Oak trees on the vacant property at 301 Spruce Street.\nThe submittal of a Landscaping Plan, as part of new development\nproposals, was required by the Historical Advisory Board as a\ncondition for the removal of one Coast Live Oak tree in 2001; and\nadoption of related resolution. The site is located at 301 Spruce\nStreet within the R-4 Neighborhood Residential Zoning District.\nApplicant Bill Wong for Hai Ky Lam. Appellant: Patrick Lynch and\nJeanne Nader.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nProponents (In Favor of Appeal) : Patrick Lynch, Appellant; Jeanne\nNader, Appellant.\nOpponents (Opposed to Appeal) : Ivan Chiu, representing Applicant.\nThere being no further speakers Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nFollowing the Appellant's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired why\nthere has been uncertainty about whether there was a Code\nviolation.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Police were called when\nremoval of the oak tree began; the officer was not aware Coast Live\nOaks are protected; Planning staff was very clear that there was a\nviolation when contacted about the tree.\nMayor Johnson requested the Appellants to provide staff with a copy\nof a letter from former City Manager Jim Flint.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 12, "text": "The Supervising Planner noted the Council is considering the\nHistorical Advisory Board (HAB) approval that the two replacement\noaks are in the proper place; a requirement of allowing the tree to\nbe removed was that the HAB would review the landscaping plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the existing two oaks would\nremain in place, to which the Supervising Planner responded in the\naffirmative; noted one is partially on City property.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether staff reviewed damage to the\nremaining trees.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the HAB required that the oak trees\nbe protected during development and required a registered arborist\nadvise the Applicant.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the two existing oak trees are being\nmaintained in their present condition and two more oak trees are\nbeing planted in positions determined by a landscape architect;\ninquired whether the complaint is that the two new oak trees are\nnot in the correct position.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the complaints are that the HAB\ndetermined that the project was categorically exempt from\nCalifornia Environment Quality Act (CEQA) and the two trees on the\nsite are not properly protected.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the landscape plan has been\nmodified since approved by the HAB.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the site plan has been modified,\nnot the landscape plan; the building was moved five feet from the\nexisting tree.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry about whether building\na single family home is categorically exempt from CEQA, the\nSupervising Planner stated CEQA permits construction of single\nfamily homes to be categorically exempt.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired why building of the house, which is\nexempt from CEQA, could not proceed even if a CEQA review were\nrequired for adding new trees.\nThe Supervising Planner responded Mr. Lynch is referring to\nsegmentation; CEQA and the courts do not look kindly upon\nsegmenting a project into pieces, which would be exempt\nindividually, but which taken together would not be exempt.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 13, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether segmenting is clearly not the\ncase for the project, to which the Supervising Planner responded\nstaff does not believe segmenting has occurred.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired why CEQA would be required for the\ntrees.\nThe Supervising Planner stated the project is a single family home ;\nthere is a landscape plan which is part of the project; the HAB had\npurview over the two new oak trees in the landscape plan as a\ncondition of a previous approval [to allow removal of an oak tree] ;\nthe HAB was concerned with ensuring the two new replacement trees,\nwhich are required when an oak tree is allowed to be removed, would\nbe located in a spot where the trees would thrive.\nIn response to Vice Mayor Gilmore's inquiry regarding the basis for\nthe appeal, Mayor Johnson stated the concern is the construction\nprocess and the impact on and protection of the two existing trees.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether an arborist was hired, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether staff believes there are adequate\nmeasures in place to protect the two existing trees, to which the\nSupervising Planner responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants believe the\nmeasures are adequate.\nMs. Nader responded the problem is she understood there would be no\nconstruction activity after the Appeal was filed; the Applicant\nused a front end loader on top of the root system of the trees on\nApril 25, which the arborist instructed him not to do without\nprotection; the Applicant exposed and cut into several tree roots;\nthe certified arborist, which she hired to look at the trees,\ndetermined the damage could be mortally wounding; that she was\ninformed by City staff that the City does not have money for a\ncertified arborist to ensure the trees are protected; the damage\noccurred after the appeal; the owner has blatantly disregarded the\nrecommendation from his own arborist; the Applicant drove over the\nroot system to move fill across the property; Code Compliance\nindicated tread marks were not apparent; her arborist indicated any\ncontamination in the fill would kill the trees.\nMayor Johnson inquired what the City could do about the issue.\nThe Supervising Planner responded staff attempts to do everything\npossible to ensure that property owners comply with regulations\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 14, "text": "Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City could require the arborist\nto submit a periodic report regarding compliance with\nrecommendations, to which the Supervising Planner responded the\nsuggestion might be a good solution.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Ms. Nader's comments are\nfactually correct, to which the Supervising Planner responded that\nshe did not know.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Appellants provided\ninformation to staff, to which the Supervising Planner responded\nstaff probably visited the site since Ms. Nader mentioned Code\nEnforcement.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Code Enforcement staff\nprovided feedback about the site visit, to which the Chief Building\nOfficial responded that he would review the matter and report back\nto Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he visited the site; that he is\nconcerned about the disruption around the tree; the owner should be\nrequested to agree to stipulations overseeing the construction\nactivity.\nBill Wong, Architect for Applicant, stated the arborist recommended\na fence around the tree during construction.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council wants to allow the Applicant to\nproceed, but the Applicant needs to protect the trees.\nMr. Wong stated the fence would be put in place once the project is\napproved.\nMayor Johnson requested the arborist to explain what needs to be\ndone to protect the trees during construction; inquired whether he\nwas retained to provide oversight during construction.\nChristopher Bowen, Project Arborist, stated that he discussed the\nmatter with Planning staff and determined the drip line should be\nfenced off.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether other measures were being\nrecommended.\nMr. Bowen responded the fence was to be installed prior to\nconstruction; that he recommends bails of hay be placed around the\nthree, the trunk be wrapped in carpet, and 2\" X 4\" lumber be\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 15, "text": "strapped to branches when construction commences protecting the\nroot system is the most important action; that he recommends\nplacing a thin layer of compost, wood chips, and plywood to protect\nthe root system.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired when Mr. Bowen last visited the sight,\nto which Mr. Bowen responded about a month ago, on April 7.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether Mr. Bowen has visited the site\nto witness the activity.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Bowen has seen the\nexposed root system, to which Mr. Bowen responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan noted the fenced off area is only five feet.\nMayor Johnson stated Mr. Bowen should conduct further analysis and\ndetermine whether restoration is needed before other measures are\nimplemented.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated Mr. Bowen visited the site a month ago\nand created a plan for protection of the tree; apparently the plan\nwas ignored; that she is not convinced a plan will be followed;\nthat she understands the neighbors' concern; inquired whether the\nCity could require the owners to post a bond for the security of\nthe trees.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; noted the\nresolution states: \"prior to issuance of building permits for the\ndevelopment on the site, the Applicants shall sign and record with\nthe County Recorder's Office a Landscape Maintenance Agreement with\nthe City to ensure maintenance of the Coast Live Oak Trees on the\nproperty. The Landscape Maintenance Agreement shall be in effect\nfor five years from the date of the recording; Council is\ndiscussing having specific terms and conditions as part of the\nrecorded Agreement that runs with the land and any violations can\nbe enforced through Code Enforcement; the terms and conditions\ncould include posting of a bond to ensure protection.\nCouncilmember Daysog noted that the City Council has certain powers\nunder the City Charter with regard to compelling testimony;\ninquired when the arborist heard about the disturbance at the site.\nMr. Bowen responded tonight; the last time he spoke to the owner\nwas to give advice on how to set up a fence around the drip line of\nthe tree; the he understood the site would be untouched until the\nbuilding process began; he was unaware any site work was being\ndone; his recommendations were to take place before construction\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 16, "text": "began; he was informed that the fence was installed; that he was\nnot hired to install the fence.\nMayor Johnson suggested the matter be continued since there has\nbeen some disruption on the site; the arborist could inform the\nCity about ways to protect the tree, which could be used as\nconditions in the approval and the matter could return to Council;\nthe owner needs to understand the conditions are serious and cannot\nbe disregarded, and there should not be any other activity on the\nsite.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the hearing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the arborist's assessment should\ninclude whether the damage jeopardizes the tree; the City needs to\ntake a close look and have a binding report.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in determining\nwhat occurred at the site: were conditions disregarded, was there\nan accident or did nothing happen.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the soil brought onto the site does not\nlook clean; the City should review the source of the soil and\ndetermine if there is a problem.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the owner should be liable for\nmaking the determination; the City should request that the owner\nconduct a soil test.\nThe City Attorney stated a design review appeal could be\nforthcoming in four weeks and the two issues could be combined.\nMayor Johnson stated the City should not assume there would be an\nappeal of the design review.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the tree issue should be resolved.\nMayor Johnson requested the matter return at the next Council\nmeeting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the conditions of approval should have\nteeth, which could be anything from having a bond posted or\nrecording documentation; encouraged the City Attorney to be\ncreative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese would\namend the motion to include requiring a review of the soil\ncondition.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 17, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese agreed to amend the motion accordingly.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-244) Recommendation to develop two separate voluntary seismic\nretrofit programs.\nKen Gutleben, Alameda, thanked City staff for making long overdue\nrecommendations stated the program will lay down the foundation\nfor developing a safer community; Victorians are extremely\nvulnerable to seismic activity; obtaining permits to retrofit\nVictorians is difficult due to strict design review laws.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Victorian homes often have brick\nfoundations, are not bolted and do not have any kind of earthquake\nbracing.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-245) Recommendation to accept Report on results of Actuarial\nValuations of the Police and Fire Retirement 1079 and 1082 Plans\nand the Retiree Health Care Plan.\nThe Finance Director gave a brief review of the reports.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the new Governmental\nAccounting Standards Board (GASB) rules are different and how the\nCity proceeded in the past.\nThe Finance Director stated the current rule requires a valuation\nof the 1079 and 1082 plans once each three years; a roll forward\nletter is completed and there is a footnote in the City's\nComprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) in between years;\nthere is not a lot to report since the City funds on a pay as you\ngo basis; there will be a new rule pertaining to other post\nemployment benefits in 2007; the actuarial was completed to look\nahead and determine the value of the Retiree Health Care Plan\nbenefits in the future; the new GASB rules require a lot of the\ndata to be reported; the reporting for the Retiree Health Care Plan\nwill become almost as extensive as the reporting for the 1079 and\n1082 plans; additionally, the City will have to decide whether to\nfund pay as you go or find a way to fund the entire plan, which\nneeds further review.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n17\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 18, "text": "Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the reports attempt to make\nthe information more transparent and look at future liabilities, to\nwhich the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City would develop a\nplan, to which the Finance Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the 10-year plan being formulated\nwould include the liabilities.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated how the\nCity funds the liability needs to be determined.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the two plans are limited\nand new employees are not being added.\nThe Finance Director responded the 1079 and 1082 plans are closed\nthe other post employment benefits are for employees who have or\nwill retire under the current agreements in place.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City is making plans and examining\nliabilities other cities, such as San Diego, raided funds that\nshould have gone toward liabilities and are almost bankrupt ;\ninquired whether the reports are related to said case.\nThe Finance Director responded the rule was in place and had not\nbeen implemented; the San Diego crisis just occurred at the same\ntime.\nMayor Johnson stated the actuarials, along with the 10-year plan,\nare very important i the City needs to consider current obligations\nin evaluating economic decisions in the future.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the point in evaluating the\nliability and establishing a plan is to ensure the City does not\nend up like San Diego in the future; the City should start\nmitigation and establish a plan.\nlouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the costs appear under the\nretirees' names on the monthly expenditures check register [bills\nfor ratification], to which the Finance Director responded\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether one plan is $68,000 and the\nother is $37,000 per month, the Finance Director responded that she\ncould review and confirm the figures.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n18\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 19, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the actuarial accrued liability\nis in excess of $70 million for both the closed plans and the on-\ngoing retiree benefits.\nThe Finance Director responded in the negative; stated $70 million\nis for the retiree benefit plan; the actuarial accrued liability\nfor the 1079 and 1082 plans is $31,683,000 as of January 1, 2005.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities\nare reported to bond underwriters.\nThe Finance Director responded bond underwriters receive the CAFR\nfor three prior years; the liabilities are included in the\nfootnotes.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the outstanding liabilities\nwould affect the City's bond rating.\nThe Finance Director responded in the affirmative; stated the City\nis judged on whether or not a plan has been established; pay as you\ngo is one plan.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry whether a plan would be\nbrought to Council, the Finance Director stated a report would be\nbrought back shortly after the first draft of the 10-year plan.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether Alameda's liabilities are\ntypical for a city of its size.\nThe Finance Director stated the City's consultant who completed the\nstudy could respond.\nJohn Bartel, Bartel Associates, stated the City of Alameda's 1079\nand 1082 plans are a little unique; most agencies do not have\nfrozen plans; the retiree health care plan is a $70 million\nunfunded liability with two separate promises : safety and non-\nsafety; the promise to the non-safety group is at the lower\nquartile of what other agencies promise the promise to the safety\ngroup is in line with an upper quartile of what agencies promise.\nCouncilmember Daysog requested a background report on the matter to\nunderstand the quartiles and median being used.\n(05-246) Presentation on the Operating Budget and Capital\nImprovements for Fiscal Year 2005-06.\nThe Acting City Manager provided a brief report on the budget and\nprovided examples of surrounding cities budget problems.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n19\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 20, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he appreciates the clarity of\nthe staff report.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good approach to balancing\nthe budget, which Council needs to continue working on; savings are\nthe result of keeping positions vacant; a more permanent solution\nis needed to address on-going decreases and shortfalls in revenues\nthe proposed budget is a good place to start; despite numerous\nbudget sessions last year, a balanced budget was not reached\nthanked the Acting City Manager for his work; stated that she would\nlike to see a combination of legal expenses in one place; legal\nexpenses are under the City Attorney's office, Risk Management, and\nAlameda Power and Telecom; the legal budget should be more\napparent; tracking is difficult when the entire legal budget is not\nin one place.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff would provide the information.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he appreciates the summary\nhighlighting the $1.9 million gap and how the gap was filled;\ninquired whether the budget includes the $1.8 million decrease in\nAlameda Reuse and Redevelopment (ARRA) funds.\nThe Acting City Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the\n$1.8 million reduced ARRA revenue caused part of the problem.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the Recreation and Park Director\nposition is being left vacant, which is leading to a policy issue\nof how the Council wants to organize department heads; under the\nCharter, the Council is responsible for organizing departments; a\nbackground on the issue should be provided when the budget adoption\nis considered.\nMayor Johnson stated Councilmember Daysog is raising the type of\nlong-term issues she was raising Council will probably look at\nreducing the number of department heads.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the recommendation is simply for the\nnext fiscal year; the position is not being eliminated; Council\nneeds to make a decision about structure at some point.\nThe Acting City Manager stated staff is not requesting the position\nbe eliminated, but is requesting that Council de-fund the position;\nstaff is requesting the position remain in place, without funding;\nCouncil would have the policy decision about whether or not to fill\nthe position if funding becomes available.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n20\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 21, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated Council could begin working on the larger\nissue; the Acting City Manager should not be expected to deal with\nthe budget problem and the major project of restructuring the\nCity's government, which is a longer term issue that needs to be\naddressed separate from the budget.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the proposed budget gets the City\nthrough the next year; hopefully the State will live up to the\nrequirements of Constitutional Amendment 1A and no longer take city\nrevenues, which would put the City in a better position the\nfollowing year.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he would not exclude reviewing\nreorganization for the next year budget; staff has the knowledge to\ndetermine service impacts; the budget is a major step in the right\ndirection; all budgets should be reviewed, not just the General\nFund.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the Council should be aware of other\nfunds in the City; the budget document addresses other funds, but\nother funds were not highlighted in the staff report; the major\ndeficit is in the General Fund, which funds most departments.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated deficits would occur in some of the\nfunded programs and adjustments would be necessary.\nVice Mayor Gilmore thanked staff for the clarity of the report.\nstated the Council is concerned about not filling vacant positions\nand about reductions in force; Department Head presentations [at\nthe next meeting] should address how reductions affect service\ndelivery to citizens; the Council should adopt the budget with eyes\nwide open and the citizens should know what is coming down the\npike; if it will take staff longer to respond to questions after\nbudget adoption, people should know before it occurs; the community\nshould be involved; hopefully, there will be more citizen\nparticipation at the next meeting; suggested the matter be placed\nearlier on the agenda.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the City should know the profile of a\nfull service city; if the police force is down to 104 officers, the\nCouncil should know whether similar size cities have more officers;\nthe public should have the context of where the City is versus\nwhere the City should be even if there might not be funding to\nincrease the number of officers; the budget should include said\ninformation; requested a distribution of budget reductions by\ndepartment; suggested a comparison of budget reductions versus\noperating cost to come up with an index which would indicated\nwhether anyone is being disproportionately impacted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n21\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 22, "text": "The Acting City Manager stated an across the board cut was not\nimplemented; some departments have been hit more heavily than\nothers ; the cuts were based upon a judgment he conveyed to\ndepartments based on his understanding of the Council's service\ndelivery priorities; cuts were made in departments with the ability\nto provide the level of service that the Council has indicated\nshould continue.\nMayor Johnson stated the Council has expressed that across the\nboard cuts are not the correct approach; the proposed budget is a\ngood attempt to reflect the Council's priorities.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he was not opposed to implementing\na one-day furlough instead of eliminating actual positions; the\nproposed budget does not trigger the need for one-day furloughs ;\nthe trigger would have been met if more positions were being cut.\nThe Acting City Manager noted four positions are being eliminated.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated if a number of police officers and fire\nfighters were being eliminated, considering options would have been\nnecessary.\nMayor Johnson stated the proposed budget is a solution for next\nyear, not a long-term solution; the Council will have to decide\nwhether positions remaining vacant should be eliminated or funded\nat some point.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated staff and service levels for the last\nfive or ten years should be reviewed to determine where the belt\nneeds to be tightened or where positions should be added.\nMayor Johnson suggested staffing levels for the last seven years be\nreviewed.\nThe Acting City Manager responded said information would be\nprovided.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the public should know the impact of\neliminating four positions; Council needs to understand impacts to\nevaluate whether the Council's priorities are being met prior to\nvoting.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired whether Council would like a short\nimpact statement from each department head.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded only for the four departments\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n22\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 23, "text": "with cuts.\nMayor Johnson concurred.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated there is not a need to go through each\ndepartment, especially departments not losing actual employees.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he is interested in creating a\nprofile for Alameda's budget the International City Management\nAssociation (ICMA) has certain ratios on the number of police\nofficers and fire fighters; inquired whether ratios were available\nfor the public works, planning and recreation departments; stated\nratios might indicate additional funding is needed for\na\ndepartment; a standard other than ICMA could be used; that he would\nlike to know where the City should be.\nThe Acting City Manager inquired whether louncilmember Daysog was\nrequesting information on ideal staffing levels.\nCouncilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative; noted Alameda\nCounty uses said standards to produce its budget.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Alameda County uses ICMA standards,\nto which Councilmember Daysog responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated standards are useful for touching\nbase, but historic review of staffing and service levels is very\nvaluable because it is reality; the City has certain realities,\nsuch as being an island which has advantages and disadvantages that\nmust be taken into account.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred that historic data is good, too;\nstated ICMA standards probably correlate to what staff is\nrequesting.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated in addition to presenting information\nfrom departments losing a staff person, departments with a large\nnumber of vacant positions that interface with the public, such as\npublic safety, should also be discussed at the next Council meeting\nso the public would be aware of changes in service.\nThe Acting City Manager noted there would be reductions in force in\nDevelopment Services, which is funded through sources other than\nthe General Fund.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there would be a reduction in\npositions at Alameda Power and Telecom, to which the Acting City\nManager responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n23\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 24, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated Council has been alluding to the\ninability to live off of billets being attrited down; cuts might\nnot be appropriate; the City needs to be realistic; the easy way,\nsuch as 5% cuts, cannot be used; service needs to be reviewed.\nMayor Johnson stated that she inquired about purchasing goods and\ncontracting locally; creation of central purchasing was a suggested\nway to do so; requested other ways to ensure as much money as\npossible is spent in Alameda and not generating tax revenues for\nother cities if the budget does not allow for the creation of\ncentral purchasing.\nThe Acting City Manager responded staff is addressing the matter\nthe budget was prepared prior to the request; the matter would\nreturn separate from the budget perhaps a position could be\nconverted.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the proposed budget is fabulous,\nparticularly the page reflecting salaries and benefits by\ndepartment and the statement that: \"if adopted, there would be no\nimpact on the General Fund reserve.'\nJohn Oldham, Acting President of the Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association (MCEA) thanked the Acting City Manager,\nFinance Director and Human Resources Department for outlining what\nis happening with the City budget stated the MCEA membership is\nconcerned about the proposed cuts and the impact on workload as\njobs of association members are eliminated; employees are the\nfoundation of what the City does, which is serve the citizens; the\nproposed budget requests that employees do more with less, which\nwill erode the customer experience; that he started his career with\nthe City in the Recreation and Park Department as a Park Director;\nthe proposed budget eliminates the position that supervises park\ndirectors, which is a loss of a mentor who understands the\noperation; MCEA understands every position has a similar story and\nchoices will be difficult; MCEA has had just over a week to review\nthe budget and proposed reduction in force; MCEA would like to\npartner with the City to resolve the budget shortfall, while\npreserving services, program delivery and the quality of life for\nAlamedans requested Council to continue to review unfilled\npositions to reduce costs and take a closer look at revenues and\nexpenditures before eliminating the positions of employees who have\ndutifully served the City for years; further stated prior to acting\non the budget on June 7, MCEA is asking to work together to look at\nthe whole picture before making a reduction in force; MCEA is\nasking for time to review the budget together so that everyone\nunderstands the impact of the reduction in force.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n24\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 25, "text": "(05-247) Presentation on the City's infrastructure investment\nchallenges.\nMayor Johnson stated that she considers infrastructure the part of\nthe City's budget deficit; the maintenance of infrastructure has\ndeclined in the last several years; although money was saved, it\ncreates a bigger deficit that must be dealt with in the future; the\nCouncil needs to decide whether to continue to allow the\ninfrastructure to continue declining or to deal with the deficit\nand prevent it from growing.\nThe Public Works Director gave a Power Point presentation on the\nCity's infrastructure.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Public Works Director had\ninformation on the percent of streets and sidewalks not in good\ncondition, to which the Public Works Director responded that he\nincluded said information for streets.\nMayor Johnson stated the information was needed for sidewalks;\nsidewalks are in bad condition; sidewalks should be made a priority\nin addition to streets.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the annual funding shortfall\nis $2 million.\nThe Public Work Director responded in the affirmative; stated\ncurrently $4 million is funded and $6.6 million should be funded;\nthe $2.7 million shortfall does not take into consideration the $33\nmillion deficit; under-funding each year continues to add to the\ndeficit.\nMayor Johnson stated the economic result of under-funding would be\nmore than $2.7 million; not completing maintenance causes greater\ndamage.\nThe Public Works Director concurred; stated there is an optimum\npoint when resurfacing should be completed to be cost effective.\nmany streets are beyond the cost effective point, which results in\nmore costly repair, such as a repair which would have cost $1 three\nyears prior would now cost $4.\nMayor Johnson requested pie charts showing the condition of\ninfrastructure other than streets, such as sidewalks and sewers.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether only spending $750,000 on street\nresurfacing during the next fiscal year would add to the deficit,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n25\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 26, "text": "to which the Public Works Director responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated priorities should be determined.\nThe Public Works Director stated the department has had a reduction\nin staff; both the pothole and sidewalk crews had reductions and,\nas a result, were combined.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether annual contracts included pothole\nand sidewalk repair.\nThe Public Works Director responded an annual contractor is\nresponsible for sidewalk repairs; Public Works employees are\nresponsible for inspections, fillets, grinding and minor concrete\nreplacement.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry regarding the contractor's\nduties, the Public Works Director stated the contractor completes\nthe backlog of permanent concrete repair in 300 to 400 locations.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated residents would understand budget\nshortfalls for capital projects, but would not understand the City\nfailing to have a plan, timeline and priorities.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted that he would prefer areas be paved\nover, rather than installing manufactured turf.\n(05-248) - ) Councilmember Daysog moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past 12:00 midnight.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is probably $8 million\nundesignated in General Fund reserve; the City should change course\nif the reserve was built up at the expense of sidewalks and\nstreets; the Council should consider allocating above $300,000;\nthere needs to be a plan; the Council should receive a report on\nhow to proceed.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is reaching the point where something\nhas to be done; people are upset about the condition of sidewalks\nand streets.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated a structural change should be made ;\nspending money upfront will save money later.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n26\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 27, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether residents are required to pay\nfor sidewalk repair, to which the Public Works Director responded\nthe City only repairs sidewalks damaged by street trees.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry about sewers, the Public\nWorks Director responded the City's sewers are doing fairly well\nbecause there is a dedicated funding source; dedicated funding\nsources or fees would allow the City to keep up with on-going\nmaintenance.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Measure B funds were used for\nthe pothole crew, to which the Public Works Director responded in\nthe affirmative.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry regarding Measure B\nfunds being a fixed amount, the Public Works Director stated the\namount varies because it is based on sales tax.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the pothole crew defers the\nneed for maintenance, to which the Public Works Director responded\nresurfacing is still often needed.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated little changes can change people's\nperception; people think negatively of their surroundings if\nstreets and sidewalks are not maintained; people might have\nconfidence the City is on the right track if improvements cannot be\nfully funded but common areas are improved.\nMayor Johnson stated not dealing with the problem creates a bigger\ndeficit; the Council needs to review the issue; a long-term plan is\nneeded to get infrastructure back in shape.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the sewer system is in good shape\nbecause it has a dedicated funding source; a similar option for\nstreets, sidewalks, and median strips should be presented to the\npublic; other funding sources will not solve the problem.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the presentation was the first step\nto identify the problem; the next step is to find ways to fund\nimprovements; having something similar to the sewer fund would be\ngood.\nMayor Johnson stated the City must be able to assure the public\nthat a thorough review was completed and there is not any money\navailable in the budget before raising fees; the deficit is huge.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the most important thing is to set up a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n27\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 28, "text": "steady funding stream; providing a large amount of money one time\nwould not work; a plan should be established.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated use of the General Fund reserve should\nbe considered.\nMayor Johnson and Councilmember deHaan concurred with Councilmember\nDaysog.\nMayor Johnson stated the City is actually losing money and should\nbe spending the money [ on infrastructure] if money is sitting in\nthe General Fund reserve while a huge debt is being incurred; there\nneeds to be a plan to ensure the City does not end up in the same\nsituation in 10 years.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the General Fund reserve is at the\ncurrent level because money was borrowed from infrastructure\nmaintenance.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(05-249) - Robb Ratto, PSBA, stated City staff is handling the\nbudget situation excellently; PSBA would be happy to identify\nresources to help the City purchase in Alameda; that he would\nenlist other business associations to partner with the City to\nensure the City purchases as much as possible in Alameda; thanked\nCouncil for showing the courage and persistence to proceed with the\nTheatre project.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(05-250) Councilmember deHaan stated Council approved going\nforward with the purchase of a vehicle tonight [paragraph no. 05-\n233] ; there is not a Ford dealership in Alameda, encouraged staff\nto consider Chevrolet.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the Animal Control vehicle could be\na Ford or equivalent.\n(05-251) Councilmember deHaan stated at one point, CalTrans was\ngoing to upgrade the lighting in the tube; requested a report on\nthe matter.\n(05-252) Councilmember deHaan thanked staff for staying for the\nbudget discussion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n28\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 29, "text": "ADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nregular meeting at 12:19 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\n29\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 30, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:10 P. .M.\nMayor Johnson convened the special meeting at 7:20 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe special meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider :\n(05-225) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation; Name\nof case St. Paul Property and Liability Insurance V. City of\nAlameda.\nFollowing the closed session, the special meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council gave direction to the\nCity Attorney.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nspecial meeting 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\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 31, "text": "TUESDAY- - -MAY 17, 2005- - -7:25 P.I M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Board Member deHaan led the Pledge of\nAllegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : louncilmembers / Commissioners / Board\nMembers Daysog,\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried\nby unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-226CC/05-024CIC) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council and\nCommunity Improvement Commission Meeting of May 3, 2005. Approved.\n(05-025CIC) Recommendation to approve an Amended Contract with\nMichael Stanton Architecture (MSA) by increasing the Contract\namount an additional $40,000 for design review services for the\nproposed Civic Center Parking Garage Project. Accepted.\n( 05-026CIC) Recommendation to receive and file revised Alameda West\nStrategic Retail Implementation recommendations. Received and\nfiled.\nAGENDA ITEMS\n( 05-027CIC)\nRecommendation to approve a First Amendment to an\nAcquisition Agreement by which the Community Improvement Commission\nacquired an Affordable Housing Covenant from the Alameda Reuse and\nRedevelopment Authority for thirty units of very low income housing\nat the Bachelor Officers' Quarters located within the Alameda Point\nImprovement Project.\nCommissioner/Board Member deHaan moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n1\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 32, "text": "Commissioner/Board Member Matarrese seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(05-028CIC) Resolution No. 05-136, \"Resolution of Necessity to\nAcquire Property by Eminent Domain for Redevelopment Purposes\nAuthorizing Commencement of Litigation to Acquire Property and for\nOrder of Possession; Code of Civil Procedure Section 1245.235 et\nseq. (APN 071-0203-014 and APN 071-0203-015; 2315-2323 Central\nAvenue, Alameda, California - Alameda Theatre/Cineplex and Parking\nStructure. Adopted.\nLester Cabral, Tenant, stated that a lot of information has just\nbeen received; that he opposes the resolution until the tenants are\nnotified about what is going on; that he understands an eviction\nnotice might be forthcoming.\nChair Johnson requested staff to meet with Mr. Cabral to answer his\nquestions.\nIn response to Commissioner deHaan's question about the property\nMr. Cabral is concerned about, Mr. Cabral responded Hair Shapers at\n2321 Central Avenue.\nLars Hansson, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) Board\nPresident, stated the PSBA Board supports the staff recommendation\nand urges adoption of the resolution; the resolution will\nspringboard negotiations with the owner to allow reaching a fair\nmarket value within a short period of time.\nDuane Watson, PSBA Board Vice President, urged moving forward with\nthe project.\nRobb Ratto, PSBA Executive Director, stated the project is\nimportant for PSBA and all of Alameda; the restoration of the\nhistoric theatre was identified as the number one priority in the\ndowntown vision process; urged support of the staff recommendation\nstated Video Maniacs has been successfully relocated with the\nassistance of Development Services.\nDaniel A. Muller, Attorney for Cocores Development Company\nsubmitted a letter; stated the letter submitted includes five\ncategories of objections to the Resolution of Necessity and right\nto take the property; the offer of $1.5 million recently submitted\nis less than half of the value that a qualified, MAI [Masters of\nthe Appraisal Institute] appraiser provided 11/2 years agoi said\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n2\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 33, "text": "appraiser, Mike Dunn, was jointly retained by the City and Cocores\nand came up with a value of $3.7 million; the appraisal the City is\nusing is over a year old; for a jointly hired appraiser to come up\nwith $3. 7 million and the City to disregard the offer and use a\nyear old appraisal that is less than half of the jointly appraised\nvalue is fundamentally flawed; secondly, the City has not followed\nthe adopted owner participation rules required by law; the rules\nspecify that the City will give preference to property owners\nwithin the project area, which has not occurred; the City allowed\nCocores to jointly pay for an appraisal and took half of the\n$25,000 price for a feasibility study in 1996 that has been\nshelved; the City has been willing to take Cocores's money in\npartnership, but has not continued to follow through with any owner\nparticipation rules; the third problem is that the City claims the\njustification for the public use of the project is remediation of\nblight the area is not blighted; the blight findings are unfounded\nand not supported by the evidence; additionally, there is evidence\nthat the outcome of the hearing is predetermined; news articles\nindicate the City has commissioned construction reports and studies\nand committed itself contractually towards the condemnation and\nproject; the City is conducting a sham hearing and is committed to\ngoing forward with the project; requested adoption of the\nresolution be delayed for a couple of meetings to allow the City to\nre-engage Mr. Cocores on the fair market value issue; stated City\nstaff offered $2.5 million to Mr. Cocores at one point and even\noffered $3 million if structured as $2 million upfront and $1\nmillion over a period of years; similar negotiations could continue\nif the resolution is delayed; if not, the City will face a right to\ntake challenge; good faith negotiations seem to have terminated but\ncould be restarted; additional evidence of predetermination is the\nDisposition and Development Agreement (DDA) that has been entered\ninto with a developer; although the DDA is carefully worded that\nthe Commission is not committing itself to condemnation, the mere\nfact that a DDA has been executed with a developer suggests there\nis no longer a discussion with the owner; urged delaying action to\nresume good faith negotiations and avoid spending resources on\nunnecessary litigation; finally, there are fatal, fundamental\nproblems with the mitigated negative declaration; deferral of some\nof the mitigation measures are impermissible under California\nEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA) i CalTrans raised problems, such as\ntraffic impacts and impacts to certain intersections, that were not\naddressed; the City must comply with CEQA prior to adoption of the\nResolution of Necessity; failure to comply with CEQA can create\nright to take challenges.\nChair Johnson inquired whether the Commission could adopt the\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n3\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 34, "text": "resolution and give direction to staff to continue negotiations, to\nwhich Legal Counsel responded in the affirmative.\nThe Development Services Director stated staff would continue to\ntalk to the owner about acquiring the property; staff has attempted\nto talk to the owner and has not had success.\nChair Johnson stated it appears the owner is now willing to talk\nand the City should enter into discussions if the owner is willing.\nThe Development Services Director stated the City has been working\non the project for many years; a Request for Proposals (RFP ) for\nredevelopment of the project was sent to the owner in December\n2000; the owner sent a letter in January 2001 which thanked the\nCity for sending the RFP and stated: \"the owner's desire is to\nwholeheartedly endorse the City's effort to locate a developer to\nredevelop the Alameda Theatre; staff has been proceeding on said\nbasis for sometime; the DDA does not pre-commit the condemnation\naction; staff has always intended and hoped to acquire the property\namicably; noted the property owner did not object at the CEQA\nhearings or DDA adoption.\nCommissioner Matarrese requested staff to comment on the claim of\ndefects in the appraisal.\nLegal Counsel responded the Commission's action is not predicated\non the joint appraisal; staff has full faith and confidence in the\nappraisal upon which the action is being based.\nCommissioner Matarrese stated the project is important; the City\nhas an opportunity to save the Alameda Theatre; the City should\ncontinue negotiating with the owner.\nCommissioner Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nChair Johnson inquired whether Commissioner Matarrese would amend\nthe motion to include approval of direction to continue\nnegotiations.\nCommissioner Matarrese agreed to amend the motion to include\ndirection to continue to negotiate [with Mr. Cocores].\nChair Johnson stated negotiations should continue if the owner is\nwilling the owner has indicated a willingness to continue to\nnegotiate; the City hopes to resolve the matter by agreement ;\nhopefully, the owner is sincere about being willing to negotiate.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Community\n4\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2005-05-17", "page": 35, "text": "Commissioner Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Commissioner Daysog stated moving forward is in\nthe best interest of the City.\nCommissioner deHaan requested staff to clarify whether Hair Shapers\nreceived notification.\nThe Development Services Director stated that on March 22, all the\ntenants were notified that the City made a bona fide offer to the\nowner the City's relocation and acquisition agents provided\ninformation to all of the tenants at that time staff would ensure\nthe tenant has all the facts.\nCommissioner deHaan stated that he supports the action to go\nforward to allow a common position to be reached.\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 Joint meeting at 8:02 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\n5\nImprovement Commission and Alameda\nReuse and Redevelopment Authority\nMay 17, 2005", "path": "CityCouncil/2005-05-17.pdf"}