2010-04-06 Regular CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY- -APRIL 6. 2010- -7:00 P.M.
Mayor Johnson convened the meeting at 7:18 p.m.
ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson — 5.
Absent: None.
AGENDA CHANGES
►=
PROCLAMATIONS. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS
(10 -134) Proclamation Declaring April 17 as Earth Day Alameda 2010.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to the Public Works Coordinator.
The Public Works Coordinator stated this year, Earth Day will have a Film Festival; the
Recreation and Park Department will be having a sculpture contest.
(10 -135) Proclamation Declaring April as Fair Housing Month.
Mayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Angie Watson - Hajjem, ECHO
Housing.
Ms. Watson - Haijem stated ECHO Housing has been serving Alameda since 2008;
Alameda has made progress in opening doors and providing housing access, that she
appreciates the partnership between the City and ECHO Housing.
(10 -136) Alameda Unified School District Parcel Tax Update.
Carla Greathouse, Chair of A +, gave a Power Point presentation.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Johnson announced that the First Amendment to the Contract with Ninyo &
Moore [paragraph no. 10 -142] was removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph
number.]
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 1
April 6, 2010
( *10 -137) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on March 16, 2010.
Approved.
( *10 -138) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,746,491.75.
( *10 -139) Recommendation to Adopt Plans and Specifications and Authorize a Call for
Bids for the Alameda Point Multi -Use Field Upgrades, No. P.W. 04- 09 -11. Accepted.
( *10 -140) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $1,499,600, Including
Contingencies, to Sausal Construction for the Neighborhood Library Improvement
Project, No. P. W. 10- 09 -29. Accepted.
( *10 -141) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $97,978, Including
Contingencies, to Schaaf & Wheeler Civil Engineers, for Design and Preparation of
Plans and Specifications for the Upgrades to the Northside Storm Drain Pump Station,
No. P.W. 02- 10 -06. Accepted.
(10 -142) Recommendation to Approve First Amendment to the Contract in the Amount
of $24,315, Including Contingencies, to Ninyo & Moore, for Geotechnical Support,
Materials Testing, and Environmental Services for the Webster Street/Wilver "Willie"
Stargell Avenue Intersection Project, No. P.W. 10- 08 -26.
Councilmember Tam stated costs ended up being 33% more than budgeted due to
unforeseen conditions, such as underground fixtures from the former Naval base and
drive -in theater and unsuitable sub -grade and multiple subsurface pavement layers;
inquired whether said conditions would be typical for the area.
The City Engineer responded Webster Street has two sub - layers; stated the Alameda
College area had a drive -in theater; abandoned utility lines were found; Ninyo & Moore
checked the compaction of the soil; some of the soil was lime treated, which eliminated
a lot of the excavation costs; construction was expedited on the Stargell Avenue portion
of the project; Naval properties would have a larger magnitude of unforeseen conditions
than the rest of the City.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the Sewer Fund loan is starting to be paid back,
to which the City Engineer responded the loan would start to be paid back in June.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote — 5.
( *10 -143) Recommendation to Approve a Letter of Understanding Between the
International Association of Firefighters and the City of Alameda on the Fire
Investigation Program and Not Filling the Assistant Fire Marshall Assignment.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 2
April 6, 2010
Accepted.
( *10 -144) Resolution No. 14433, "In Support of SB 1068; and Recommendation to
Authorize the Mayor to Convey the City's Support for the Bill to Senator Hancock, and
Modify the City's Adopted Legislative Program to Include a Policy on Business
Development." Adopted.
( *10 -145). Ordinance No. 3016, "Amending Sections 30 -37.6 of the Alameda Municipal
Code Related to Design Review Approval Expiration and Extension." Finally passed.
CITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS
(10 -146) Civic Center Plan — May "Open House"
The Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that he is concerned with the financial overview; inquired
when the financial overview would come to Council, to which the Interim City Manager
responded that she is aiming for July.
Councilmember Tam requested a comparison of other vision processes and costs.
The Interim City Manager stated the Civic Center Plan cost is $55,000; the North of
Lincoln visioning cost was $75,000.
The Economic Development Director stated the North of Lincoln visioning cost also
included the form -based code; that she does not know the cost was for the Downtown
Visioning Plan; approximately $30,000 was spent on a conceptual plan for Webster
Street.
Councilmember Tam inquired how much public outreach was done for the North of
Lincoln project versus the Civic Center.
The Economic Development Director responded the projects are different animals;
stated the North of Lincoln area experienced a different economic change; losing the
car dealership changed the street forever; a lot of detailed thought went into how to
guide new development; some visioning was done to see what the sites could contain
and what the massing would look like; a lot of time was spent with business
associations, property owners, and interested people on the form based code; people
were provided with an opportunity to review concepts and provide comments.
Councilmember Tam inquired what would be the interplay given the proximity of the
vision plans.
The Interim City Manager responded the North of Lincoln Plan did not focus on the Civic
Center; stated the Civic Center Plan took information from the North of Lincoln Plan and
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 3
April 6, 2010
interconnected the two plans to prevent the same uses; the geographical cut out has
been expanded.
The Deputy City Manager — Development Services stated a similar [to the North of
Lincoln Plan] in -house design workshop was held [for the Civic Center Plan];
stakeholders were invited; an open house outreach was held in May; focus groups were
held in addition to the workshop.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the downtown visioning had many elements; staff is
solidifying and updating thoughts that have already been in place; the process has been
ongoing.
(10 -147) Park Master Plan /Urban Greening Plan
The Interim City Manager and Recreation and Parks Director gave a Power Point
presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the [recent] tree survey includes parks.
The Recreation and Park Director responded the survey includes street trees; stated a
comprehensive inventory has been completed fro three parks.
Mayor Johnson stated Council gave direction to expand the survey.
The Interim City Manager stated staff went to public facilities and parks to evaluate a
tree program and then other issues came up; park management and the Master Plan
need to be reviewed, including trees.
Mayor Johnson stated the health of the trees should be assessed.
The Recreation and Park Director stated staff monitors the health of the trees.
Mayor Johnson stated trees falling should be avoided; every tree needs to be assessed.
The Recreation and Park Director continued the presentation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated money has been set aside for periodic maintenance;
inquired how much has been set aside in the last ten years; stated getting to some of
the hardcore items has been difficult.
The Recreation and Park Director responded most of the money has been going toward
routine maintenance; capital has been limited.
The Interim City Manager stated an amount is not dedicated each year; a Master Plan
for a city the size of Alameda would cost approximately $140,000 and include a needs
assessment, a tree plan and facility evaluation; a comprehensive Master Plan is needed
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 4
April 6, 2010
to calculate a good impact fee for future development; a policy decision needs to be
made on how much money should be dedicated; that she does not want to run the risk
of needing to close parks until money is available for repair or replacement.
The Interim City Manager continued the presentation.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether the Park Master Plan would come back in June, to
which the Interim City Manager responded the matter would come back with the budget.
Mayor Johnson stated the plan is good and would provide understanding of the need for
ongoing maintenance and upkeep; making a [funding] commitment would be easier with
a plan; funding was not made available even in good times ten to fifteen years ago.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated rebates and credits are available; [replacing] lighting and
irrigation could have major paybacks.
Councilmember Tam stated a developer usually dedicates [park] land; inquired how
land dedication is factored into impact fees or in lieu of fees.
The Interim City Manager responded the scale of the project is reviewed; under the
Quimby Act, a developer can give a park a dollar -to- dollar basis; an evaluation is made
on what the land and park are worth; most developers are willing to provide turn key
parks because parks are a value to the developer and help sell houses; under impact
fee, the amount is negotiated; impact fee legislation prohibits overbuilding in one criteria
and under building in another, both options are offered.
Councilmember Tam stated sometimes impact fees require a Nexus Study.
The Interim City Manager stated a Master Plan is needed before a Nexus Study; impact
fees cannot pay for past deficiencies and park maintenance, only new things.
In response to Councilmember Gilmore's inquiry, the Interim City Manager stated Nexus
Study analysis is based on what Council approves from a policy standpoint; the
Boatworks example of 225 [homes] adds 5% to 10% towards General Plan build out,
but a subdivision of 10,000 homes reaches build out faster.
Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether owners only choice would be to write a
check.
The Interim City Manager responded 90% of developers provide a turn key park; stated
owners usually write a check for impact fees; the last project that reaches build out ends
up having to build the facility and usually a Mello Roos is included.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated impact fees can only be for support of a development; the
community would need to pay for something over and above.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 5
April 6, 2010
The Interim City Manager stated the developer, through negotiations, could chose to
build something; having facilities are wonderful, but maintenance is needed; a lot of
creative solutions are coming forward; park and field maintenance could be done by a
non - profit but the responsibility for calendaring and scheduling would remain with the
City; staff is looking forward to bringing some solutions to Council in the spring; grant
opportunities are limited without a Master Plan, the Urban Greening Plan grant is
$250,000 can be used for a Master Plan; the City needs to have master plans that have
a greening eco sustainable approach.
Mayor Johnson stated impact fees are legal requirements if in place; negotiations are a
whole different thing; the City would look for bells and whistles at the former Navy base
through negotiations.
Speaker: Dorothy Freeman, Estuary Park Action Committee.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the City is now the proud owner of the Beltline property; that
he hopes the visioning process will be similar to the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront
Park; the matter was addressed almost a year ago and should be included.
Councilmember Gilmore stated hopefully, money would be appropriated for the Master
Plan in the next budget; many of the slides shown tonight deal with existing park needs;
inquired whether the Master Plan would include proposed parks and if so, what would
be the level of detail.
The Interim City Manager responded the detail would not be at a level of architectural
design but would include location, use, an analysis of projected build out, a needs
assessment, and reuse of old parks; homework has been done to get the RFP ready;
staff would come back with the scope of work.
Councilmember Matarrese stated a scope is needed to find out what are the
deliverables; Council gave direction to set up a community process to define what the
Beltline would look like; that he sees a parallel to the Master Plan; direction has already
been given to go forward regardless of when the Master Plan is finished; requested that
staff research the matter.
The Interim City Manager stated the City already has the [Beltline] site and needs to
decide what to put on the site.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Estuary Park/Northern Waterfront Park should be
included [in the Master Plan], too.
Councilmember Tam inquired whether the scope would include: 1) some broad
concepts based upon demographics and changes within the City as a whole, 2) land
and facilities owned by the City or those recently acquired, such as the Beltline, 3)
privately owned land that the City might acquire, and 4) park lands controlled, operated,
and maintained by the East Bay Regional Park District, including trails around the
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 6
April 6, 2010
Island.
The Interim City Manager responded said scope would include components that the
consultant would study; stated the consultant may recommend additional parks or
facilities that the City should think about in the future; the General Plan was done prior
to the Density Bonus Ordinance.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Miracle League would be included, to which
the Interim City Manager responded in the affirmative.
REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS
(10 -148) Recommendation to Accept Financial Report for Second Fiscal Quarter.
The Interim City Manager gave a presentation.
Councilmember Tam stated major juggling has been done with refinancing and cuts; the
property transfer tax fund designated as "32200 Property Transfer Tax" under "General
Fund Revenue by Source" shows $3,250,000 budgeted but $3,650,000 is projected;
inquired whether the amount would have been cut in half without Measure P passing;
stated Measure P funds are not restricted; the City has the discretion to use the funds
for vital City services such as Police and Fire; inquired where Measure P funds are
spent.
The Interim City Manager responded the $3,250,000 would be down to $2,200,000
without the new rate; stated there is a nexus between property taxes and property
transfer taxes; homes are being sold for less than pre- October [2008]; property tax is up
because the formula increased; in the past, property tax increased by 2% to 5%
[annually]; the City had were more short sales in the last six months than the prior year;
comparing the property tax change pre and post Measure P would be good; Measure P
funds are used to support the General Fund; 80% of every dollar in the General Fund is
used for public safety, libraries, and recreation and parks; under State law, General
Fund revenue cannot be an earmarked revenue source absent a special tax; the market
was different when Measure P passed; housing was selling more; $3,650,000 is not bad
considering the housing market.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated this year's budget was put together under a different process
and cost center; inquired whether there have been benefits.
The Interim City Manager responded that she thinks so; stated program costs are more
understandable; Finance is able to cost control and manage and oversee the budget in
a more detailed fashion.
Vice Mayor deHaan agreed cost centers are well serving their purpose.
The Interim City Manager stated the conversion took a lot of work; budget preparation
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 7
April 6, 2010
should be easier this year.
Councilmember Gilmore stated a lot of work went into the budget preparation using a
very old, antiquated computer system; inquired whether transferring the format over to a
new system would be difficult.
The Interim City Manager responded the phone system cost savings would be used to
upgrade the computer system; stated staff is moving forward with outsourcing parking
citations; staff will propose eliminating the existing business license module and add a
module for permit processing; Fiscal Sustainability Committee Member, Lorre Zuppan,
introduced staff to an adaptive planning system which is Excel driven.
The Deputy City Manager — Administrative Services stated Washington County uses the
system.
The Interim City Manager stated using the adaptive planning system would cost
$14,000 versus $250,000 for each new module; the only thing left would be the General
Ledger that would be converted in Fiscal Year 2011 -2012; Public Works can also use
the adaptive planning system.
Councilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON - AGENDA
(10 -149) James Wullschlegor, Alameda, discussed parking regulations related to motor
homes.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor's motor home was cited on his
property or the street, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded the street.
Mayor Johnson stated the City wants to restrict motor home street parking; people have
commented that it would be helpful to have a permit to allow owners a certain number of
hours to load up motor homes.
Mr. Wullschlegor stated people do not need another vehicle if a motor home can be
used for transportation; that he has tried to sell the motor home for two years; he should
not be forced to own another vehicle.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wullschlegor sent an email regarding the
matter, to which Mr. Wullschlegor responded in the negative.
Vice Mayor deHaan inquired what is the size of the motor home, to which Mr.
Wullschlegor responded twenty feet.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 8
April 6, 2010
COUNCIL REFERRALS
(10 -150) Consider Pursing the Establishment of a Task Group to Promote, Market and
Support Businesses, Educational and Technology Resource Opportunities.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business
Consortium was established in 1997; the City has economic development opportunities,
such as America's Cup and Google Wireless; an effort needs to be made to bring a
marriage between education, technology, and business at Alameda Point; the College
of Alameda, California State University East Bay, and University of California, Berkeley
were involved; the Chamber of Commerce's Silicon Island was a marketing effort to
gain high technology business in Alameda; the Bureau of Electricity [Alameda Municipal
Power] designated the City as an Electric City; that he does not want to start a task
group but would love to see a business consortium to promote business, school, and
technology resource opportunities; Wind River was bought by Intel and will be Intel's
future centerpiece; Alameda Point businesses want to come together and look at
business opportunities to promote business, education and market assets.
Councilmember Tam stated that she recalls a business incubator when former
Councilmember Daysog was on the Council; inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan's
referral is similar; stated that she thought the business incubator did not get enough
traction because the effort did not have enough business momentum.
Former Councilmember Daysog responded Silicon Island was developed and two job
fairs were held in the late 1990's; the City had an Economic Development Corporation,
which tried to bring Trader Joe's to town in the late 1980's and 1990's.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated his referral is similar; the Chamber of Commerce wants to
move forward with more proactive marketing; businesses need to get together; there
are opportunities throughout Alameda.
Councilmember Tam stated the City had an Economic Development Corporation and
now has an Economic Development Commission (EDC); former Economic
Development Commissioner, Donna Milgram, spoke about specific ways to outreach
businesses; inquired what the EDC could do to help promote what Vice Mayor deHaan
is suggesting.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded the EDC could be the centerpiece; stated businesses
could be the real catalysts.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he supports the concept; the EDC's role could be
review how a local development corporation could be tasked with the mission of building
a business consortium similar to the Advancing California's Emerging Technologies
(ACET) model to allow private sector participation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Councilmember Matarrese was involved with the greenbelt
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 9
April 6, 2010
corridor, which is regional; Alameda could be a feeder; Electric City promoted
converting everything to electric.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she is struggling with the basic concept; the City
has the EDC and business associations to outreach to businesses; however, the
educational component is lacking; that she is not sure what the City is being asked to do
that the EDC and business associations cannot do, with the exception of the
educational component.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated business associations look after individual entrepreneurs;
that he wants to look at bigger entities, such as Abbot Labs, that have more technology
to offer; that wants to see how the educational component can be linked to the
University of California, Berkeley; provided a handout to Council.
Mayor Johnson stated the EDC just gave a presentation [to Council]; suggested that the
matter be sent to the EDC and include educational and private sector components;
stated the scope should be broadened; the Council Referral is very similar to what the
EDC does; the EDC should be given the opportunity to review the matter and might
suggest that something else be done.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she supports sending the matter to the EDC with
direction to incorporate a broader educational component and technology feeders.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated a wind power group is at the former Navy base; everything
should be packaged; everyone [businesses] will sign up.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he would like the EDC to come back to Council
with a recommendation about what action would fulfill the goal of establishing a
business consortium to promote, market, and support the many business, educational
and technology resources in the City.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would look at the core documents, particularly
the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business Consortium; the documents could
be offered to the EDC.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Alameda Education, Technology, and Business
Consortium was a non - profit.
Vice Mayor deHaan moved approval of sending the matter to the Economic
Development Commission, with the caveats discussed.
Councilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice
vote — 5.
(10 -151) Consider, Discuss and Act on the Webster Street Business District Planning
and Revitalization.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 10
April 6, 2010
Councilmember Matarrese stated there has been a lot of progress on Webster Street,
but there is still a need for a catalyst project, filling empty store fronts, and creating a
buzz around Webster Street similar to the catalyst project on Park Street; moving in a
uniform front across the City is important in order to be ready when the economy starts
to recover; that he would like Council to consider giving direction to move in a uniform
front and include that any revitalization plans start with an upfront planning process built
on relevant, existing documents; Park Street had foundation with the Economic
Development Strategic Plan and Downtown Vision Plan; that he would like to see the
same approach applied to the Webster Street Business District; the matter should be
included in budgeting discussions.
Speakers: Christopher Buckley, Alameda resident and West Alameda Business
Association (WABA) Design Committee; former Councilmember Tony Daysog,
Alameda; and Kathy Moehring, WABA.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he purposefully put in the comment: "relevant to
existing planning documents;" the City has a West Alameda Neighborhood Plan,
Stargell Avenue extension and streetscape, and an Economic Development Strategic
Plan; a lot of building blocks make the foundation for the exercise; Webster Street is
waiting for implementation of a catalyst project; the intention is to get from plans to
implementation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Council wanted to set aside $5 million [in redevelopment
funds] for Webster Street; the money was not there; there was no revenue stream; the
West End deserves to move forward.
Councilmember Tam stated there seems to be a planning paralysis; everyone is
anxious to implement something but nobody seems to find a way to get things going;
that she is wondering whether a grand effort to stitch all the plans together will get
catalyst projects; that she is not grasping how the plan can take shape.
The Interim City Manager stated the idea is to go beyond landscaping and lighting
plans; taking the next step of implementation is necessary; stakeholders have to be
involved in shaping their own neighborhoods and businesses first; the core documents
available for Park Street are not the same documents available for Webster Street;
plans need to be stitched together; the private sector is not going to chase the idea if
the City, through the redevelopment agency, does not.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City needs to move forward on Webster Street as
soon as possible; the Interim City Manager has stated everyone needs to do more with
less; the reality of the situation is that the City cannot move forward all at once with all
the good ideas; a work plan is needed for all priorities for the next six months, year, or
whatever the period of time is determined; that she proposes to start discussions and
prioritize the work plan; public discussions are needed so that everyone is on the same
page; new ideas could be added to the cue; sometimes Council gets distracted with
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 11
April 6, 2010
new projects and old projects do not get finished; sometimes taking ones eyes off the
ball is the issue, not funds; priorities need to be set.
Mayor Johnson stated that she concurs with Councilmember Gilmore; now is a good
time for planning.
Councilmember Gilmore stated Webster Street should be on the project list; a complete
list is needed for community input.
Mayor Johnson stated there are not a lot of projects going on now.
Councilmember Gilmore stated the City should be the catalyst.
Mayor Johnson inquired whether staff could take on the work.
The Interim City Manager responded staff needs to concentrate on Webster Street in
order to move ahead with a comprehensive, Citywide economic development approach;
the budget should be adopted in June; the budget workshop on June 19th would be a
good time to set priorities; Management Partners did an assessment involving Council
priorities and values.
Mayor Johnson stated all plans should be put together; there are many reasons why
things have not been implemented; since the 1950's, plans to improve Park Street were
developed every ten years and nothing ever happened; now is a good time to look at
plans more broadly and strategically and with a real goal of implementation.
Councilmember Gilmore stated that she concurs with Mayor Johnson; projects need to
be strategically planned out and prioritized so they do not get lost in the shuffle.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that he feels optimistic about the next level of
planning reaching implementation.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the 2004 economic plan for Webster Street spelled out
catalyst projects; Alameda Landing, which was going to be a salvation for Webster
Street, did not happen.
Former Councilmember Daysog stated a lot of great things are happening on Webster
Street largely because of the work of the Economic Development Department; now, it is
just a matter of tying up everything.
Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of giving direction to the Interim City
Manager to prioritize a public planning process, built on relevant existing planning
documents for revitalization of the Webster Street Business District, ensuring that
existing planning documents be taken into account, that the planning process includes
up -front public participation and there is a budget for the process.
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 12
April 6, 2010
Vice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote — 5.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
(10 -152) Mayor Johnson inquired whether temporary Recreational Vehicle (RV) parking
permits should be brought back as a Council Referral or if it is something that the Police
Department could review.
The Interim City Manager responded a status report could be provided at the next
Council meeting.
Mayor Johnson stated people want to park on the street to load up motor homes; San
Leandro provides a permit for [short term] parking.
Councilmember Matarrese stated that the speaker was issued a ticket and a boat has
been stuck at the end of Grand Street for months; the City has an ordinance because
junk is being parked on the streets.
The Deputy City Manager — Administrative Services stated the ordinance has several
pieces; vehicles have to be moved a mile every 72 hours; boat trailer and RV parking is
prohibited on streets.
Mayor Johnson stated that she does not think having a permit process for loading an
RV would be unreasonable.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated the speaker said his RV is 20 feet, which is a little bigger
than a car and is his sole vehicle.
Mayor Johnson stated the question is how an RV is defined.
(10 -153) Vice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda County Supervisor Alice Lai - Bitker made
a presentation at the Yacht Club; the topic was manning and raising bridges; manning
the bridges from 9:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. is proposed, which would be one shift; four
hours would be needed to respond to a request outside the timeframe [when bridges
are staffed]; the Coast Guard is initiating the effort, not the County.
Councilmember Tam stated that she was at the presentation; the shifts would be fully
manned from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; after 4:30 p.m. would require on demand service;
the proposal would be from the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard is not under any
obligation to hold public hearings; Supervisor Lai - Bitker felt there is an opportunity to
make sure those most affected would have the ability to comment and provide
feedback; the matter was published in the Federal Register on March 31St; the comment
period is open for 90 days.
Mayor Johnson stated when she met with the Coast Guard, the idea was to man two
shifts and provide on demand service overnight; having two shifts on demand seems
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 13
April 6, 2010
more problematic; questioned the cost effectiveness of paying someone on call.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated data shows that most bridges are raised three times per day.
The Interim City Manager stated there the proposal last October was the result of
previous discussions regarding closing the bridges; that she does not recall four hour
[on call response] being mentioned; questioned who would pay to have the bridges
opened.
Councilmember Tam responded the County would pay for the staffing; stated the
County is trying to save $695,000 by looking at some type of compromise.
Mayor Johnson stated statistics show an industrial user would occasionally need on
demand service at the High Street Bridge; that she does not know the statistics from
4:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. or 11:00 p.m.
The Interim City Manager inquired whether Council would like staff to prepare a City
response during the comment period.
Vice Mayor deHaan responded that he would like a response; stated that his concern is
whether the City has been engaged in the conversation.
Mayor Johnson inquired when the Federal Register published the proposal, to which the
Interim City Manager responded March 31St
Mayor Johnson stated the proposal is a good thing to consider; right now, the County is
staffing the bridges twenty -four hours a day, seven days per week; the County has
budget issues; the first solution was to close the bridges; that she does not think on
demand service would be something that the City could not overcome; it seems like the
County would pay more in call back time.
Councilmember Tam suggested that the Interim City Manager and Public Works
Director meet with the County Public Works Director; stated the County has all the data
and did an analysis of the call back time; the Fruitvale Bridge is the only bridge that
receives public subsidies; there may be some opportunity to man the bridge twenty -four,
seven and coordinate with the other bridges if there is a case that can be made for
Homeland Security.
The Interim City Manager stated that she would follow up on the matter; inquired
whether Council wants to respond during the comment period.
Mayor Johnson stated a meeting should be set before responding.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated Homeland Security is another concern.
ADJOURNMENT
Regular Meeting
Alameda City Council 14
April 6, 2010
(10 -154) Councilmember Matarrese stated that former Councilmember George Beckam
passed away in the middle of March; requested that the meeting be adjourned in his
memory.
Vice Mayor deHaan stated that former Councilmember Beckam was voted into office
under Measure A and received the State's first Engineering Certificate.
There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the meeting in memory of
former Councilmember Beckam at 10:34 p.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 15
April 6, 2010