2004-12-07 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY - - DECEMBER 7, 2004 - - 7:30 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:00 p.m.
AGENDA CHANGES
None.
Present: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore, Kerr
and Matarrese - 5.
Absent: None.
PROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
(04 -645) Proclamation honoring Officer Patrick Wyeth for his
military service.
Mayor Johnson read the Proclamation and presented it to Patrick
Wyeth.
The Police Chief presented the flag hung over Officer Wyeth's
camp in Iraq.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to approve the
Planning Board's decision to approve Planned Development PD 0-
004, Use Permit UP 03 -016 and Design Review DR 03 -108 [paragraph
no. 04 -648] was removed from the Consent Calendar for
discussion.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of the remainder of the
Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk
preceding the paragraph number.]
( *04 -646) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council
Meetings held on November 16, 2004. Approved.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
December 7, 2004
( *04 -647) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,645,353.64.
(04 -648) Recommendation to approve the Planning Board's
decision to approve Planned Development PD 03 -004, Use Permit UP
03 -016 and Design Review DR 03 -108, with conditions, for the
Bridgeside Shopping Center at 2523 Blanding Avenue at Tilden
Way.
Ken Dorrance, Video Station, urged the Council to amend Section
18 of the Planning Board's draft to prohibit chain video stores
in the Bridgeside Shopping Center.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to see the
speaker's wishes honored.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the speaker's video store is
unique.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to add a
condition excluding chain video stores from permitted uses.
The Development Services Director stated that she does not know
whether the condition would violate the terms of the Disposition
and Development Agreement (DDA) ; cautioned limiting uses could
be problematic with future tenants.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was unaware that Blockbuster Video
was going into the Center.
Doug Wiele, Project Developer, stated there is one signed lease
for the Center [grocery store]; no other leases have been
executed; there is no deal with Blockbuster Video; there have
been several video store proposals but no commitment; stated
tenant negotiations are not discussed until the lease is signed.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wiele thought about the
speaker's request to exclude video chains from the Center.
Mr. Wiele responded that he would be happy to have a
conversation with the speaker regarding a lease; there are very
few independently owned video stores; there are some issues in
suggesting to place anything other than a non -chain video store
in the Center.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he would be concerned about acting
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
December 7, 2004
on the matter tonight; Council needs to understand the
ramifications.
Mayor Johnson stated Council needs to be concerned with setting
precedents.
The City Attorney stated Council could give approval tonight and
request a report on the leasing progress; Council could amend
the PD to exclude certain uses.
Councilmember Kerr stated redevelopment districts should not put
existing business out of business.
The City Attorney stated the Video Station only has a lease; a
permanent condition should not be placed on the PD because the
Video Station may not be a permanent use.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation
with the condition to direct staff to: 1) keep Council appraised
of leasing progress, and 2) bring the issue back if the Video
Station is impacted.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that tough decisions need to be made to
ensure the greater good for Alameda; Council needs to move
forward.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog; that she
is heartened with the Developer's willingness to open meaning
talks with the Video Station.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr congratulated the members
of the Planning Board for their time and effort throughout the
project; stated that she feels that all redevelopment of PD's
should come to Council; that she is concerned about the downward
directed light in the parking lots; the design of the lighting
is being left to the discretion of the Planning and Building
Director; at Webster Square, tall, bright downward directed
lights shine into the Independence Plaza bedrooms.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there could be better language on
the type of lighting.
Councilmember Kerr responded language could be added to require
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
December 7, 2004
lighting be compatible and kind to the adjacent residential
area.
Mayor Johnson stated she would like to give specific direction
to ensure lighting does not disturb surrounding properties.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the lighting issue should be
brought back to Council for approval.
The Developer stated that he has no issue with demonstrating the
lighting design to Council.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there was a plan to put in
decorative lighting, to which the Developer responded the plan
was to put in decorative lighting fixtures as trim in the
pedestrian areas and more functional lighting in the parking
areas.
The Planning and Building Director stated there is a post
installation inspection of lighting; if the lighting does not
satisfy the requirements after installation, modifications can
be required; a report can be provided to Council.
Councilmembers Matarrese and Daysog amended the motion to
include that the lighting design plan return to Council.
Mayor Johnson thanked the Developer and City staff for all of
their hard work on the project.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
( *04 -649) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to
negotiate and execute an Agreement with PPM Energy, Inc. for the
purchase of power from wind generation. Accepted.
( *04 -650) Recommendation to adopt Legislation to create the
procedure for the establishment of Property -Based Improvement
Districts in the City of Alameda. Accepted.
( *04 -651) Recommendation to extend ferry fuel surcharge on the
Alameda /Oakland Ferry Service and the Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry
Service. Accepted.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
December 7, 2004
( *04 -652) Resolution P
Authorizing Execution
Accepting Dedications
Way) ." Adopted.
>. 13797, "Approving Final
of Subdivision Improvement
and Easements for Tract
Map and Bond,
Agreement and
7232 (Winant
( *04 -653) Resolution No. 13798, "Declaring Canvass of Returns
and Results of Consolidated General Municipal Election Held on
Tuesday, November 2, 2004. Adopted.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(04 -654) Resolution No. 13799, "Appointing Alysa Beth Chadow as
a Member of the City Commission on Disability Issues." Adopted.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms.
Chadow with a certificate of appointment.
(04 -655) Resolution No. 13800, "Appointing Judith A. Lynch as a
Member of the City Historical Advisory Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms.
Lynch with a certificate of appointment.
(04 -656) Resolution No. 13801, "Appointing Karen L. Hollinger
Jackson as a Member of the Social Service Human Relations
Board." Adopted.
Councilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
The City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Ms.
Hollinger Jackson with a certificate of appointment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
December 7, 2004
(04 -657) Update on the new main library project.
The Project Manager provided an update on the construction and
introduced the proposed construction team.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether Council came to a
consensus regarding removing the open space funds from
consideration.
Mayor Johnson responded that Council capped the use of
contingency at 100.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council wanted open space
funds removed.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the additional $2 million funding
for Ron Goode Toyota was earmarked as an investment which would
bring back the principal and return; that she is concerned with
taking money earmarked for an investment and return and using it
for a project that would not produce redevelopment money.
Mayor Johnson stated reserves are needed; if the $2 million is
not used toward the reserve, sources would need to be found
elsewhere.
Councilmember Kerr stated additional Measure 0 funds could be
prioritized above the $2 million in redevelopment money;
inquired what amount would be needed to complete the project.
The Project Manager responded the Contract would be around $18
million, which portends a contingency of $1.8 million and a
reserve contingency of $1.8 million.
Councilmember Kerr inquired how much additional funding would be
needed to finish the Library.
The Project Manager responded there is $15.6 million in the
combination of Measure 0 and bond funding for hard construction
costs; the $15.6 million would need to be supplemented to reach
$18 million.
Councilmember Kerr inquired whether LEED certification could be
reviewed after the Library is built, to which the Project
Manager responded in the negative.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
December 7, 2004
Mayor Johnson stated that Council had given direction to
complete the LEED certification components that are good for the
project and not spend the money for the certification.
The Project Manager provided a handout outlining specific value
engineering items proposed for removal; stated all items related
to energy savings and comfort of staff and build occupants were
retained; Taylor Engineering provided a proposal to complete the
commissioning without documentation for $10,000.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the Library will be chiefly for
children; that she cannot see spending the money for leather.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether having different materials in
different areas of the Library makes sense, to which the Project
Manager responded that the leather upholstery is limited to the
adult section.
The Interior Designer stated that there would be lounge
furniture along the bay windows; the UCSF Medical Library
leather furniture has held up well over 14 years.
Councilmember Kerr stated that having leather lounge seating may
not be the best choice given the fact that money is short.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the Library Board should put together a
strategy to have chairs sponsored so there is revenue to
replenish the chairs when needed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the question of leather versus
vinyl upholstery is premature; that he is leery about
commissioning the building for $10,000 without documentation;
questioned if there would be balance reports or evidence of
inspections; stated that he would like to review whether the
LEED process provides value because it ensures that the building
is delivered as specified; requested the architect and
contractor to provide the technical reasons for the differences
between the stacked brick versus the veneer brick; stated that
furniture should be addressed once the Library is built.
The Architect stated a full brick building with a cavity wall
and a concrete wall behind it provides air space which will
provide long lasting durability.
Mayor Johnson inquired what are all options.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
December 7, 2004
The Architect responded options are: 1) concrete wall with a
cavity space and brick, 2) slim brick placed onto the concrete,
3) brick placed next to the concrete wall with a smaller air
space without the insulation, and 4) steel frame with brick
veneer.
The Contractor stated that the least expensive method would be
concrete block; this method could not be engineered for portions
of the building; the pre -cast panels are not an option because
there was no way to tie the panels together; shock creed
[spraying dry concrete on a form] generates a savings of over
$100,000; stated that placing thick tile on top of the concrete
is less expensive but not durable over time; that he proposes
brick with an air space and concrete wall.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the face brick savings would be, to
which the Contractor responded $60,000.
Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like to move the
spending of the additional Measure 0 funds before the
redevelopment funds.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the additional Measure 0
funds would have gone to branch libraries, to which the Project
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Mayor Johnson stated the Library should be envisioned as a
redevelopment project because the project will revitalize the
surrounding areas; stated the commitment to the branch libraries
should not be forgotten; a final decision does not need to be
made tonight.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has no problem with using
a portion or all of the $2 million in redevelopment funds; the
project has already improved the downtown area and will add
value to downtown once built; the voters approved Measure 0 with
the understanding that a certain amount of tax dollars would go
to improve branch libraries; that he would hold the Project
Manager accountable for managing the project within budget and
keeping the Council informed.
Mayor Johnson inquired what type of architectural services is
expected during the construction process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
December 7, 2004
The Project Manager responded the Contract includes contract
administration services throughout construction in the amount of
$363,000.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether there could be change orders, to
which the Project Manager responded that there will be change
orders but they should not be significant.
Mayor Johnson requested a monthly report on change orders once
construction begins.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the additional Measure 0 funds
promised to branch libraries should be taken out; redevelopment
funds are a legitimate source for library funding; additional
Measure 0 funds should not be part of the hopper.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired where the money to complete LEED
certification comes from, to which the Project Manager responded
that the majority of the money is coming from the construction
budget.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether any of the money is
coming from Alameda Power & Telecom's (AP &T) budget.
The Project Manager responded in the negative; stated that AP &T
staff have discussed the potential of using grant funding to
supplement the budget by approximately $62,000; staff report
will be going to the Public Utilities Board on December 20;
utilizing any AP &T resources to fund the Library would cut down
on any grand funding for private businesses.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the assumption would be
that money would come out of the construction budget if the City
wanted to include the LEED certification, to which the Project
Manager responded in the affirmative.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the City
use of additional Measure 0 funds; $4.2
funds are needed, including the 100
additional Measure 0 funds are not used,
million shortfall; noted AP &T is required
public benefit projects in the budget.
cannot afford to remove
million in additional
contingency; if the
there would be a $1.2
by law to have certain
The AP &T General Manager stated four different categories are
budgeted for public purpose programs: 1) energy efficiency, 2)
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
December 7, 2004
new investments and renewable energy sources, 3) low income
programs, and 4) research and development; approximately
$370,000 is budgeted annually toward energy efficiency, most of
which is forecasted to be spent or already encumbered.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the allocations within the four
categories could be adjusted, to which the AP &T General Manager
responded that the monies set aside for the public benefit
program have already been overspent.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there is an option to reduce the
contingency to $3 million.
Mayor Johnson stated a realistic, sound contingency is needed;
some people have stated that the loo contingency is too low.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that doing the value engineering
process should reduce the reliance on contingency.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the contingency industry standard
is less than 100.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that utilizing redevelopment
funds to fill the gap is an option; Measure 0 funds need to be
protected because of the campaign commitment to branch
libraries.
Mayor Johnson inquired what direction the Project Manager needed
tonight, to which the Project Manager responded that he would
like specific direction on the exterior wall cladding, LEED
certification, durability of fiver cement counter tops versus
pressure laminate, and suitability of leather.
Michael Hartigan, Citizen Representative of the Library Building
Team (LBT), urged moving forward with the project.
Honora Murphy, LBT Chair, urged Council to consider Certificates
of Participation when funding is addressed.
Mayor Johnson requested clarification on the issue of
Certificates of Participation.
The City Attorney stated under Proposition 218, Certificates of
Participation issued for City Hall required a vote of the
people; Certificates of Participation must identify a funding
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
December 7, 2004
source and would require a vote of the people.
The Finance Director stated that Certificates of Participation
are a lease -back; an asset must be in place in order to issue
Certificates; in the case of the library, the asset is not built
yet; Certificates could be issued by a vote of the people after
the building is built; without an asset in place, rates go up.
Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, LBT, urged the Council not to abandon the
LEEDS certification.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that the West End Library is beautiful;
that he is willing to move forward on the requested items and
discuss funding later.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much the savings would be for fiber
cement versus laminate countertops; inquired about maintenance.
The Project Manager responded the laminate counter tops would
last fairly long and could be replaced two to three times prior
to reaching the cost of fiber cement; there is a $26,000 saving
by going with pressure laminate counter tops in the staff areas
only.
Councilmember Kerr stated that removing remove the leather
versus vinyl option from discussion was fine with her.
The Project Manager stated that the leather versus vinyl option
is not critical to the construction contract.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether LEED certification could be
pursued if funding was found within a timeframe that works with
the construction schedule, to which the Project Manager
responded LEED certification should be decided on tonight.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether other utility companies have been
contacted for potential funding, to which the Project Manager
responded that he has been in communication with Pacific Gas &
Electric (PG &E) and they have not offered any supplemental
funding.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the City has applied for money
through PG &E, to which the project Manager responded that he
applied for a program that PG &E has for new commercial
structures.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1 1
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Gilmore stated that the LEED certification should
not be pursued because the design benefits are already in the
building; money should not be spent on outside consultants for
when the outcome is uncertain.
The Project Manager stated that the elements being taken out are
clearly detailed; the staff shower, recycled cotton insulation,
additional monitoring points, and the CO2 monitoring in the
conference room.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether LEED certification is a one -time
examination, to which the Project Manager responded there is a
revisit after the first year.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he is not interested in
placing a certificate on a wall for $54,000; he is interested in
the outcomes of LEED assessment; inquired whether having the
HVAC wired to accept the monitoring points for efficiency is a
$54,000 savings.
The Project Manager stated that the CO2 monitors could be
installed for $2,950.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he has reservations about
having the building turned over to the City without a good
commissioning document; inquired whether the certification money
could be found through grants
The Project Manager stated the LEEDS certification has to start
the first day of the project.
Mayor Johnson stated that component #4 (leather versus vinyl
upholstery) would not be addressed.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he was satisfied with the
exterior brick wall cladding option.
Mayor Johnson stated that she was fine with the pressure
laminate counter tops in the staff area, installation of the CO2
monitoring, and not pursuing the LEED certification.
The Project Manager stated that he hoped to bring the Contract
to Council before the end of the year to lock in 2004 prices;
there would be cost escalations immediately in 2005.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wants to ensure that
benefits are not being given up for $54,000 and assurance that
the project is completed as specified.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether the commissioning of the
building for $10,000 involved any written documentation, to
which the Project Manager responded that a written report would
be issued.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether there would be any
independent checking to ensure that the work was done as
specified, to which the Project Manager stated that a third
party could be hired; Taylor Engineering could come back in one
to three years to ensure that the system is operating
efficiently.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether State money would be lost by
not having LEED certification, to which the Project Manager
responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Daysog moved approval of directing staff to move
forward with the Contract, including the exterior brick wall
cladding, not pursuing LEED certification, and pressure laminate
counter tops in the staff areas.
Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he was confident
that everything would be done to keep costs down.
The Project Manager stated that letters of intent would go out
to Amaroso and all subcontractors locking in the prices.
Mayor Johnson stated that the cost of materials is not the only
cost escalation factor.
(04 -658) Public Hearing to consider amending Underground
Utility Districts, Phase 6; and
(04 -658A) Resolution No. 13802, "Amending Underground Districts,
Phase 6." Adopted.
Councilmember Kerr moved adoption of the Resolution.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Gilmore seconded the motion.
Under discussion, a resident from the 2500 block of Webb Avenue
urged Council to include the 2500 block of Webb Avenue was
included.
The Public Works Director stated that Webb Avenue is not
included in the District; requests for inclusion were not
received; at this time, Webb Avenue cannot be added because
noticing was not completed; when a comprehensive, accelerated
undergrounding plan is provided to Council, Webb Avenue can be
added.
Councilmember Matarrese stated Council requested that the money
be spent down each year instead of building a surplus.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired what timeline is envisioned for
putting a plan together, to which the Public Works Director
responded the process would take three to four months.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested that Public Works review a
comprehensive plan for improving the infrastructure that would
allow residents to check progress.
On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous
voice vote - 5.
(04 -659) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Major Design Review DR04 -0013 and Variances
VO4 -0005, VO4 -0015, VO4 -0016, VO4 -0017 to permit the
construction of a rear deck and garage addition completed
without City permits; and adoption of related resolution. The
rear deck measures thirty inches in height from grade to top
surface of deck and is built up to the south (left side) and
west (rear) property lines. The garage addition is an expansion
of the existing single- family dwelling to the north (right side)
and west (rear) property lines. The Applicant is requesting four
(4) Variances to permit construction of the work completed
without permit including: 1) Variance to Alameda Municipal Code
(AMC) Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(2)(6) to construct a rear deck that
measures thirty inches in height and is constructed up to the
south side and rear property line with zero setback, where a
minimum three foot setback is required for decks measuring
twelve to thirty inches in height; 2) Variance to AMC Subsection
30- 5.7(e) (1) to construct an unenclosed stair and landing up to
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
December 7, 2004
the south side property line with zero setback, where a minimum
three foot setback is required for unenclosed stairs and
landings; 3) Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(7) to
construct an attached garage addition that extends the main
dwelling up to the rear property line with zero setback where a
minimum twenty foot setback is required for rear yards; 4)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.4(d) (6) to construct an attached
garage addition that extends the main dwelling up to the north
side property line with zero setback where a minimum five foot
setback is required for side yards. The site is located at 913
Oak Street within an R -4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning
District. Applicant: Fred and Ursula Hoggenboom. Continued to
January 4, 2005.
Councilmember Gilmore moved that the hearing be continued to
January 4, 2005.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, Gilmore,
Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstention: Councilmember Kerr
- 1.
(04 -660) Public Hearing to consider an Appeal of the Planning
Board's denial of Variances, VO4 -0006, 0007, 0008 and 0010, and
denial of Major Design Review, DR04 -0026, for all development
projects at 3017 Marina Drive; and adoption of related
resolution. The site is located within an R -1, Single- Family
Residential Zoning District. The development project includes
expansion of the residence into the estuary and installation of
rear yard decks. Approval is being sought for the following: 1)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 4.1(d) (3) (Maximum Main Building
Coverage exceeding 480); 2) Variance to AMC Subsection 30-
4.1(d)(7) and Section 30 -2 (Rear Yard) because the building
extends across the rear property line into the estuary; 3)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(a) (Roof Eaves) and 30- 5.7(d)
(Bay Windows) because the roof eaves above the bay windows
encroach to within 3 feet from the side property line and bay
windows are not permitted to encroach into side yards; 4)
Variance to AMC Subsection 30- 5.7(c)(1) (Rear Yard), Subsection
30 -2 (Definitions) (Yard -Rear) and Subsection 30- 4.1(d)(7) (Rear
Yard) because decks over 36- inches in height extend into the
required side and rear yard setbacks; 5) Variance to AMC
Subsection 30- 5.14(c) (Barrier Heights) because the windscreens
around the patios exceed the maximum permitted 8 -foot height.
The Planning Board found that the Variance for the bay window
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 15
December 7, 2004
encroachment be withdrawn because encroachment is in compliance,
subject to Design Review approval. Applicant /Appellant: Rita
Mohlen. Continued to January 18, 2005.
Councilmember Kerr moved that the hearing be continued to
January 18, 2005.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
(04 -661) Recommendation to accept the City of Alameda
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for Fiscal Year
Ended June 30, 2004.
The City's External Auditor, Maria Giannell, Maze & Associates,
gave a presentation summarizing the financial statements and
management recommendations.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the City is anywhere near the
unfunded pension liability situation in San Diego, to which the
External Auditor responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested staff to provide an explanation on
the components of the $7 million interfund transfers.
Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the spreadsheet
structure could be simplified, to which the External Auditor
responded that the City's method for tracking transfers is
boiled down fairly well.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested the External Auditor to work with
the City Auditor and City Treasurer on the 4 to 7 best practices
to allow the City to compare same size cities.
The External Auditor responded that accountants are precluded
from including opinions in financial statements; she could
assist staff in developing and analyzing the information to be
included in a staff report; it is helpful to put the numbers in
context to utilize the financial statements as a tool.
Councilmember Matarrese stated the audit report is dated October
15, 2004; inquired why Council is receiving the report now.
The External Auditor responded audit standards state the last
date of the fieldwork is the date of the audit; after the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 16
December 7, 2004
fieldwork is completed, the reconciliation is put together for
the financial statements; once the upper level consolidation is
complete, the draft financial statements can be provided to
staff.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether a ten -year projection should be
implemented, to which the External Auditor responded that she
recommends initiating a ten -year projection to enable Council to
do long -range planning rather than react to crises that need to
be addressed immediately.
Mayor Johnson inquired how a ten -year projection could be
implemented, to which the External Auditor responded that she
could help build a model and provide the tools for staff to
manage the operation.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the City's pension contributions
have gone up by $9 million between 2002 and 2004 and is an
example of the serious financial challenges that the City faces.
The City Treasurer stated that he encourages Council to move
forward with a ten -year projection.
The City Auditor stated that it is important to have a ten -year
projection for the retirement benefit plan; a ten -year
projection for the entire budget would cost significantly more.
Vice Mayor Daysog requested a recommendation for providing a
structure on how to handle the matter; stated the City does not
have a Finance and Budget Commission.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the Civil Service Board should be
made aware of the situation.
The External Auditor stated reviewing pension costs in isolation
without reviewing revenues does not allow the Council to see the
overall impact on City operations; staff involvement in the
project saves time and money and provides staff ownership.
Mayor Johnson inquired what the timeframe would be for the
project.
The External Auditor responded that January or February would be
a good time to work on the project with staff.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 17
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he wanted to ensure that the
project was well defined with regard to Council's expectations;
that he liked the idea of reviewing the pension funds and health
benefits.
The City Manager inquired whether Council would like staff to
work with the External Auditor, City Auditor and City Treasurer
in drafting a scope of services for Council review.
Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative; stated that the
numbers need to be put in context; requested information on the
bond refinancing issue.
The City Treasurer stated that money was needed by the City for
a project; Council approved the bond issue request; the bond was
to be backed by a letter of credit issued by a bank; the letter
of credit was pulled due to the underwriting bank having
difficulties, which resulted in a bond that did not appear to be
as good; the refinancing seemed to unwind the disadvantageous
situation.
Mayor Johnson inquired how much the refinancing cost the City,
to which the City Treasurer responded $3 million.
Vice Mayor Daysog inquired which bond was being referenced, to
which the External Auditor responded the $18.5 million 2003 Tax
Allocation Refunding Bond.
Councilmember Matarrese stated there are two issues within the
audit observation; one is a question of financial practices
within the Finance Department and the other is an issue of
governance and policy; approving a refinancing is something that
Council should review; that he believes there should be a
response to the audit observations which indicates deficiencies
in the practice.
The Finance Director stated that she could provide an internal
control memorandum with an action plan for correction by the
first meeting of January.
(04 -662) Councilmember Kerr moved that the Regular City Council
Meeting be continued to after 12:00 a.m.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 18
December 7, 2004
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote -5.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the speed in
which the Finance Director anticipates getting a corrective
action to the Council; she does not want information presented
as an Off Agenda Report; she would like to have the matter
placed on the agenda to allow Council discussion and direction;
that she was gratified to see the External Auditor's
recommendation to involve the City Auditor and City Treasurer
more on a daily basis; she would recommend Council to have a
joint work /study session with the City Auditor and City
Treasurer once some of the data comes.
Mayor Johnson concurred with Councilmember Gilmore; stated some
cities have audit offices; inquired whether it was unusual for a
city the size of Alameda not to have an audit staff.
The External Auditor responded Alameda is only one of three
cities she audits that has an internal auditor.
Mayor Johnson stated that there seems to be issues where more
on -going audit activities would be beneficial.
The External Auditor stated that the Council might want to add
an Assistant Finance Director position once there is an
improvement in economic conditions.
Councilmember Matarrese requested that the audit responses for
corrective and preventive action be brought back to Council for
approval; stated that the responses also need technical approval
by the City Auditor.
Mayor Johnson stated that developing an annual plan for auditing
issues would be a good idea.
(04 -663) Recommendation to appropriate $50,000 for services and
supplies necessary to engage the community and analyze potential
impacts of the proposed Koi Nation Indian casino in Oakland.
Accepted.
Councilmember Kerr urged residents to attend a Special Meeting
on December 14.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 19
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Kerr moved approval of staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.
Under discussion, Mayor Johnson inquired who was coordinating
the meeting, to which the City Manager responded the Assistant
to the City Manager.
On call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice
vote - 5.
(04 -664) Ordinance No. 2933, "Amending the Alameda Municipal
Code by Repealing Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two Family
Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space
Requirements) , Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential
District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements),
Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District,
Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10)
(General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space
Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d) (10) (Hotel Residential
District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and
Section 30 -5.12 (Open Space; Schedule of Required Residential
Open Space) of Chapter XXX (Development Regulations) in Their
Entirety, and Adding a New Subsection 30- 4.2(d)(9) (R -2, Two -
Family Residence District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space
Requirements) , Subsection 30- 4.3(d)(10) (R -3, Garden Residential
District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements),
Subsection 30- 4.4(d)(10) (Neighborhood Residential District,
Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), 30- 4.5(d)(10)
(General Residential District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space
Requirements), Subsection 30- 4.6(d) (10) (Hotel Residential
District, Minimum Height, Bulk and Space Requirements), and
Section 30 -5.12 (Definition of Required Residential Open
Space)." Finally passed.
Councilmember Kerr moved final passage of the Ordinance.
Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by
unanimous voice vote - 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON- AGENDA
(04 -665) Lorraine Lilley, Harbor Island Tenant Association,
requested Council to place a fair relocation ordinance on the
December 21, 2004 City Council Meeting.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 0
December 7, 2004
(04 -666) Modessa Henderson, Harbor Island Tenant Association,
requested Council to review the interim control and place the
matter on the December 21, 2004 agenda; inquired how an item
could be placed on the agenda.
(04 -667) Jean Sweeney, Alameda, submitted a handout the 2004
Alameda Point Environmental Program and reviewed contamination.
Councilmember Matarrese stated valuable information was
presented; requested an official report on the matter at the
next Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority Meeting.
Councilmember Kerr stated that staff could reproduce the map
presented at no cost.
(04 -668) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed electric bicycles.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(04 -669) Discussion regarding Assembly Bill 2404 (Steinberg)
Discrimination: Athletic Programs
Councilmember Kerr stated the Bill addresses sports programs
discriminating against young women; the legislation is concisely
written and has some teeth; the City should review the
legislation.
Mayor Johnson stated that the City is liable for non - compliance
and should take an affirmative measure to ensure compliance;
inquired whether the matter should be referred to the Recreation
and Parks Commission.
Councilmember Kerr responded that the Recreation and Parks
Commission would be a good place to start.
Mayor Johnson stated organizations which use City facilities
were also included.
Councilmember Kerr stated that the City is responsible for
allocating resources to private organizations.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated staff is reviewing the
Bill with the City Attorney's office; the City is in better
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 21
December 7, 2004
shape today due to the establishment of the Sports Advisory
Committee and a Field Allocation Program.
Mayor Johnson stated that some of the sports leagues do not have
permits for practice times; there should be a formal signup
requirement.
The Recreation and Parks Director stated specific age groups and
teams need reporting; pier review has been helpful.
(04 -670) Councilmember Kerr stated that a Councilmember should
be assigned to monitor Oakland Planning Commission meetings; a
recycling facility on the estuary near High Street is being
proposed; suggested that a member of the Council subscribe to
the Oakland Planning Commission agendas.
Mayor Johnson requested to start receiving a copy of the Oakland
Planning Commission agendas.
(04 -671) Councilmember Matarrese stated that the City has a
December 16 court date regarding Harbor Island Apartments;
requested the matter be placed on an agenda; stated that he is
disappointed with the Federal Court's actions.
Councilmember Kerr stated City Council action is not needed to
pass an ordinance; that she has a negative reaction to punishing
every landlord because of the bad acts of one landlord.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated that he believes the proposed ordinance
is worth reviewing; that he would hate to have to go to court
again; that he does not believe the City is ready to have an
emergency ordinance at this time.
Mayor Johnson stated that there are many organizations in
Alameda that would like to provide input; stated that she does
not recall any Rent Review Advisory Committee action in the last
two years.
Councilmember Gilmore concurred with Vice Mayor Daysog; stated
that she was concerned that other landlords would watch to see
how the City would handle the Fifteen Asset Management Group;
the City does not want to be reactive; policies should be in
place.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 22
December 7, 2004
Councilmember Matarrese stated that Council needs an update on
what happens at the December 16 hearing; direction needs to be
established.
Councilmember Matarrese requested a report on planning and
building activity, the outcome of the December 16 court date,
and any negotiations between the City and the Fifteen Asset
Management Group be discussed at the December 21 City Council
Meeting.
Vice Mayor Daysog stated the discussion should include the next
steps to be taken.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the
Regular meeting at 1:00 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Lara Weisiger
City Clerk
The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the
Brown Act.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2 3
December 7, 2004