{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 21, 2006--7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 8:07 p.m.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(06-076) Mayor Johnson announced that the recommendation to\nappropriate $170,000 in Urban Runoff Funds and authorize the City\nManager to execute a Contract with Regency Centers [paragraph no.\n06-079 - ] would be continued to March 7, 2006.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding\nthe paragraph number . ]\n( *06-077) Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting held on\nFebruary 4, 2006 and the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on February 7, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-078) Ratified bills in the amount of $1,452,894.81.\n(06-079) Recommendation to appropriate $170,000 in Urban Runoff\nFunds and authorize the City Manager to execute a Contract with\nRegency Centers for repair to public drainage facilities in\ncoordination with construction of the Bridgeside Shopping Center\nimprovements. Continued to March 7, 2006.\n(\n*06-080) Recommendation to appropriate funds and to award Contract\nin the amount of $2,057,000 to Pacific Trenchless, Inc. for Cyclic\nSewer Repair Project, Phase 4, No. P.W. 05-03-11. Accepted.\n(*06-081) - Recommendation to approve the purchase of five\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 2, "text": "Communications Center Workstations for the Police Department from\nWright-Line Technical Environment Solutions in the amount of\n$45,535.03. Accepted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(\n06-082) Resolution No. 13927, \"Appointing Lorre Zuppan as a\nmember of the Economic Development Commission. Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a certificate of\nappointment to Ms. Zuppan.\n(06-083) Report on proposed PERS Golden Handshake Retirement under\nCalifornia Government Code Section 20903.\nThe Human Resources Director provided a brief report.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what are the procedures for moving\nforward with the Golden Handshake program.\nThe Human Resources Director responded interested employees would\nneed to file retirement papers with PERS by June 30; stated PERS\nwould provide a notice to the employees and would make adjustments\nfor the two years additional credit once the employees start\nreceiving pension checks.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the matter would return for\nCouncil action.\nThe Human Resources Director responded that a resolution will be\npresented to the Council on March 7.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether a certain number of people\nare required to participate in the program, to which the Human\nResources Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether a reduction in the work force\nwould be necessary if individuals do not take advantage of the\nprogram, to which the Human Resources responded staff reduction\nmight be necessary.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated fourteen classifications are listed;\ninquired whether each classification has only person or more than\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 3, "text": "one employee in each pool.\nThe Human Resources Director responded there are eleven\nclassifications stated more employees could take advantage; four\nCustomer Service Representatives are listed but six could take\nadvantage of the Golden Handshake.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City is required to handle the\nprogram in a certain manner.\nThe Human Resources Director responded that PERS has specific\nrequirements; classifications could be designated by department and\ndivision.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the number of employees in a\nclassification could be limited.\nThe Human Resources Director responded only if the department,\ndivision, and area were narrowly defined.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he hopes there are no consequences\nby having too many employees take advantage of the program.\nMayor Johnson stated fewer employees would be eligible if the\nclassification is narrowly defined.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-084) Recommendation to adopt the Long-Term Park Use Policy.\nThe Acting Recreation and Parks Director provided a brief report.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the Recreation and Park\nDepartment could contract with a third party to conduct a program\nin one of the parks, to which the Acting Recreation and Park\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she liked that for-profit groups\nwould not be considered; the application states that property\nowners and tenants would be notified to attend a neighborhood\nmeeting; inquired whether the Acting Recreation and Park Director\nwas aware of what the notification process would entail.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative; stated the notification process has been done in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 4, "text": "past.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the process would be at the\napplicant's expense, to which the Acting Recreation and Planning\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the long-term, exclusive\nuse was for the whole park or for not more than 15% of the park.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the long-term,\nexclusive use would be for not more than 15% of the park.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to require\nCouncil approval for any alternations to existing park conditions;\nthe parks are precious open space; he does not believe that the\npublic should be excluded if a private group has long-term,\nexclusive use of a portion of the park; inquired how the policy\nwould affect existing private use of park land.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded currently there\nare no long-term uses.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the two pools have long-term uses.\nThe Recreation and Park Director stated the two pool associations\nhave leases until 2011.\nMayor Johnson inquired when the leases were renewed, to which the\nActing Recreation and Park Director responded five years ago.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the pool association and\n[Cellular] tower leases are the only private uses.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative; stated that the private uses are covered by separate,\ndetailed agreements.\nMayor Johnson requested clarification on Councilmember Matarrese' S\nrequested changes.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated changes would be requiring Council's\napproval for any uses that would change existing park conditions.\nMayor Johnson stated a distinction is needed between use and\nstructures; a requirements is needed in the case of change or\nstructures. she prefers that the policy be a resolution or\nordinance: she personally prefers an ordinance; stated broader\nnewspaper noticing should be required; she does not like the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 5, "text": "language regarding the decision being final unless appealed;\nquestioned whether an appeal would include the Call for Review\nprocedure.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that she has a philosophical problem with\nthe phrase \"paving over open space\" unless referring to\nrecreational-type - facilities.\nCity Manager inquired whether temporary tents would be acceptable,\nto which Mayor Johnson responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would prefer to have\ntemporary tent requests come to the Council for approval; a lot of\nmoney is invested in the parks and; the parks should be treated\nlike gold; private parties should pay dearly for exclusive use of\nthe parks.\nMayor Johnson stated a distinguishing factor could be a non-profit\nhaving a public event versus a non-profit having an event that\nexcludes the public.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated exclusive use means groups would\ndetermine who could enter the park and who cannot.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director stated the paragraph at the\nbottom on the page states : \"Park and recreation facilities are\ndesignated for public use. Therefore entities requesting approval\nfor long-term use of park land and recreation facilities must be\nable to accommodate participation from the general public and not\nbe limited by membership association.\nMayor Johnson stated the term \"exclusive use\" should not be used.\nThe City Manager suggested using the term \"designated use\"\nMayor Johnson stated non-profits are not defined.\nThe City Manager stated non-profits could be defined by the type of\ncorporation.\nMayor Johnson inquired about unincorporated organizations.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded a definition for\nnon-profit status is available.\nMayor Johnson stated the definition should be included in the\npolicy.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 6, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that the application form should include\nthe language: \"Park land and recreation facilities are designed for\npublic use. Therefore, entities requesting approval for long-term\nuse of park land and recreation facilities must be able to\naccommodate participation from the general public and not be\nlimited by membership association.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director stated the language could\nbe included; noted applicants need to schedule a pre-meeting as\npart of the process.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired what were the Recreation and Park\nCommission's comments regarding the 72 hours and whether the 72\nhours applied to a per-year basis.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the Recreation\nand Park Commission felt other activities would be impacted if any\npark activity shut down a park for 72 hours or more; a 72- hour use\nwould be subject to more review than shorter-tern uses.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the 72-hour use would apply\nif a non-profit occupied different parks for eight-hour periods at\ndifferent times of the year.\nThe\nActing Recreation and Parks Director responded said uses would\nbe handled through the current one-day reservation process.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether reservations for picnic areas would\nbe included in the policy.\nThe Acting Recreation and Parks Director responded picnic area\nreservations are handled through the one-day reservation process.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the Lincoln Park and Franklin\nPark pool association responsibilities would change with the\npolicy, to which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded\nin the negative.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that the pool associations have a\nlease; inquired how the policy would affect the renewal of the\nlease.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the Council would\nhave the option to extend the lease based upon the public service\nprovided.\nMayor Johnson stated lease renewals are issues that should come to\nthe Council.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 7, "text": "Counci lmember Daysog inquired whether the pool associations had an\nopportunity to weigh in on the long-term policy.\nThe Acting Recreation and Park Director responded the pool\nassociations and other groups were notified of meetings.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether the pool associations\nparticipated in the meetings, to which the Acting Recreation and\nPark Director responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the pool associations could\nbe contacted directly to ensure that the policy has been received,\nto which the Acting Recreation and Park Director responded in the\naffirmative.\nThe City Manager stated that the preference is to bring the policy\nback to the Council as a resolution with suggested changes.\nMayor Johnson requested that Council resolutions be added to the\ncompliance checklist in staff reports.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he would like to receive feedback from\nothers who might be impacted by the policy.\nMayor Johnson stated staff could send notice inviting participation\nin the process.\n(06-085) Adoption of Resolution Calling Upon Steps to Withdraw Our\nReservists, Coast Guard Units and Members of the California\nNational Guard Troops from Iraq. Not adopted.\nProponents (In favor of Resolution) :\nMark Irons, Alameda; Diana Morrison, Alameda; Dorothy Kakimoto,\nAlameda; Mary Abu-Saba, Alameda; Tom Matthews, Alameda; Richard\nHofmann, Alameda Democratic Club; Deborah James, Alameda: Kathryn\nNeale Manalo, Alameda; Paula Rainey, Alameda; Jasmine Tokuda,\nAlameda; Norah Foster, Alameda; Allen Michaan, Alameda; Neil\nGarcia-Sinclair, Alameda Irma Garcia-Sinclair Alameda; Carl\nHalpern, Alameda; Susan Galleymore, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow,\nAlameda: Pat Flores, Alameda; Michael John Torrey, Alameda; and\nDavid Teeters, Alameda.\nOpponents (Not in favor of Resolution) :\nRichard Myshak, Alameda (submitted comments) ; Dr. Alice A. Challen,\nAlameda; and Robert Todd, Alameda.\nMayor Johnson thanked the speakers for the courtesy and respect\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 8, "text": "shown to each other and thanked Councilmember Matarrese for\nbringing the issue to the community for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese thanked the speakers and those who sent e-\nmails and letters; stated the initial notion was to bring the\nCalifornia National Guard home; personally he feels that the rest\nof the troops cannot be left behind an exit is needed for all;\nthat he is very glad that Ms. Morrison is back home and is honored\nby\nher presence; other Alamedans are in danger; the City is\ndirectly impacted and damaged by the policy being carried out; he\nunderstands that the Charter sets limitations on the City Council;\nthe Charter does not limit speaking to higher governments letters\nare written and resolutions are made when higher levels of\ngovernment propose policies that would damage Alameda; Alameda's\npresence was made known regarding the port of Oakland; a seawall\nbroke due to a storm and high tides on Bay Farm Island; Federal\nEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) money was to pay for the repair;\nthe federal government provides funding for Section 8 housing,\nhighways, transportation, and the Base's superfund cleanup the\nfederal government is saying there is no money; money is taken away\nfrom cities if the State receives less federal money; the Base\nimpact is real and direct; Alamedans will pay for living on a sand\nbar when an earthquake occurs; simple and direct language is\nproposed for the resolution; Alameda is paying a price that is\ngreater than the benefit; proposed the following resolution\nlanguage \"WHEREAS, the costs have resulted in unprecedented\nFederal budget deficits, which directly impact and damage the State\nof California and Alameda.\nMayor Johnson stated that she does not think the community\nconsensus is to have the Council speak on behalf of the City; she\nconcurs that local levels are affected by federal issues; she does\nnot mind communicating her concern regarding the level of the\nCalifornia National Guard and the ability to respond to local and\nState emergencies; she feels the resolution goes beyond that\nconcern.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated he had the opportunity to go to\nWashington, D.C. over the weekend; he was touched to see 50,000\nnames of people who paid the ultimate sacrifice; the Vietnam War\nwas highly controversial and lasted longer than necessaryi Council\nmeetings are a place where ideas can be heard; the Vietnam Memorial\nmight not have been necessary if towns voiced opinions earlier;\nCity Councils need to make statements on issues of grave importance\nsuch as Iraq; the City of Alameda is steeped in history and proud\nof traditions, including the Base and individuals such as Jimmy\nDoolittle who became a World War II hero; he does not want the City\nof Alameda and the City Council to be like other Bay Area City\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 9, "text": "Councils such as Berkeley, San Francisco, and Santa Monica; Alameda\nis a middle-of-the-road City; words need to be chosen wisely and\ncarefully; the resolution goes beyond withdrawing the California\nNational Guard from Iraq but also references certain politicos\ndistain for President Bush and contributes to the vitriol between\nthe far left and far right; politics should not drive how Alameda\nengages in discussions; the Council must serve all of Alameda and\nnot just those most angered by President Bush; the Council should\nexpress appreciation for the armed services' work, sacrifices, and\ncommitment and pray for a safe and speedy return; everyone believes\nthat having the troops back sooner and safer is best for all;\nAlameda has an opportunity to contribute in a way that is stripped\nof the far left and far right rhetoric.\nVice Mayor Gilmore thanked everyone for having a calm discussion on\na very difficult issue; stated some people will be dissatisfied\nregardless of tonight's outcome; she would not like to have\ntonight's discussion construed as not supporting the troops in\nIraq; the troops deserve support and thanks; the troops are paying\nthe ultimate price for the country's ideals; concurred with Mayor\nJohnson regarding there not being a consensus within the community\non the resolution; she has been persuaded by the eloquent speakers\nwho spoke of how the City would need the National Guard, Coast\nGuard and reservists in case of an earthquake, natural disaster, or\nterrorist attack; the City Council has a responsibility to plan for\ndisasters and ensure that everything is done to protect the\ncitizens; she does not believe that the Council needs a consensus\nfrom the community to support a resolution to call the California\nNational Guard home; she has a difficult time with the concept of\nthe City Council passing a resolution calling for withdrawal of\nall troops from Iraq; she does not believe there is a consensus\nfrom the community to speak on the issue; she is trying to keep her\npersonal opinion separate from her responsibility as an elected\nCouncilmember; she is trying to represent all of Alameda, not just\na portion.\nCouncilmember deHaan apologized for having to leave the last\nCouncil Meeting due to a pinched nerve; stated many people were not\nproud of how long the Vietnam War lasted and how the veterans were\ntreated upon return; a disproportionate majority of the veterans\nare being served by homeless shelters, soup kitchens and other\naids; he did not think that he would be discussing Vietnam War\nissues when he ran for office nothing is going to change the\ninnocence lost from 911; the war in Iraq is troublesome; Katrina is\na good example of not being prepared; he vowed that he did not want\nto get into a national level discussion when he ran for office;\nfuture money will not be available for the Base but is not the\nreason that the Base has not been conveyed; stated he will not\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 10, "text": "support the resolution.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he put together an alternate\nresolution that references his opening statement regarding offering\nprayers for a speedy and safe return of the troops; read the\noperative sections of the alternate resolution; stated the two\nresolutions differ in that his resolution does not reference\nCongressman Murtha's or Assembly Member Hancock's highly partisan\ntones. concerns can be conveyed in words that are more carefully\nand wisely chosen.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved adoption of the alternate resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that the alternate resolution does\nnot ask or demand anything a request needs to be made to have the\nNational Guard return home and a timetable provided for withdrawal\nof the rest of the troops the burden increases as the situation\ncontinues; he understands looking at history for an appreciation\nand lessons learned; the Base has not been conveyed because of\nhaggling over the remediation costs; he is willing to strike\nreferences to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock from\nthe resolution.\nVice Mayor Gilmore concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding\nasking for something in the resolution; stated Council has the\npurview to call the California National Guard home the California\nNational Guard has been abused and needs to come home for\nCalifornia's safety and security; she is not willing to support a\nresolution calling for the withdrawal of all troops.\nCouncilmember Matarrese proposed striking out partisan references\n[in the original resolution]; stated language regarding a timetable\nmeets the intent of what the City needs reaching a consensus on\nthe issue is impractical he thinks the majority of the citizens\nare in favor of bringing troops home and understand the need;\nconsensus is a strong word; leading with the majority is sometimes\nnecessary instead of driving for consensus.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated the majority of the people in attendance\nare in favor of the resolution; the majority of e-mails and phone\ncalls she received were against the resolution; she is not bothered\nby not having a majority agree to bring the California National\nGuard home because the Council's role is to prepare for a natural\ndisaster or terrorist attack.\nCouncilmember Daysog restated his motion to adopt the alternate\nresolution.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that some Councilmembers have endorsed\nsome of the State resolutions; he has some major concerns with\nmoving one step forward at the local level.\nOn the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers Daysog and deHaan - 2. Noes:\nCouncilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 3.\nMayor Johnson CONCURRED with Vice Mayor Gilmore's comments\nregarding the Council not being misconstrued as not supporting the\ntroops; stated a resolution should ask for something.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that a past Council made a more\ncontroversial resolution supporting a nulti-lateral versus\nunilateral approach to Iraq three years ago; a fiscal disaster\nexists which is as real as a natural disaster.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution striking\nreferences to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether the language \"immediate stops\nto establish a date and timetable to withdraw U.S. troops\" would\nremain in the resolution, to which Councilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson stated the MOTION FAILED due to lack of a second.\nMayor Johnson expressed her appreciation to everyone attending the\nmeeting and to Councilmember Matarrese for bringing the issue to\nthe community for discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a second would be given to\nhis motion if the language \" withdraw U.S. troops\" was deleted.\nVice Mayor Gilmore responded in the affirmative stated she is\ncomfortable in requesting that the California National Guard return\nhome; national level discussions are more difficult.\nCouncilmember Matarrese amended his motion to adopt the resolution\nstriking references to Congressman Murtha and Assembly Member\nHancock; keeping the focus on the California National Guard, and\nreplacing \" withdraw U.S. troops\" with \" withdraw California\nNational Guard troops.'\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 12, "text": "Councilmember Daysog stated the language as amended still includes\nmilitary logistics that go beyond the scope of the City Council;\nthe resolution is another contribution to the level of rancor\nbetween the far left and far right.\nVice Mayor Gilmore requested clarification on how the amended\nresolution would read.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded that the paragraph referencing\nCongressman Murtha and Assembly Member Hancock would be removed;\nthe second to the last paragraph would read: \"NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT\nRESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda calls upon\nthe President, Congress and the Governor of California to take\nimmediate steps to withdraw the California National Guard.\"\nMayor Johnson stated she has no problem in stating that adequate\nCalifornia National Guard levels are needed here to deal with\nemergencies and disasters, which is different than the proposed\nlanguage ; the community does not want the Council to speak about\nwithdrawing all troops from Iraq; maintaining adequate levels of\nthe California National Guard is different; State and local\ngovernments have been left at risk.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the key phrase in the resolution is\n\"to take immediate steps to establish a date and timetable to\nwithdraw U.S. troops\" he is not a military logistics planner; the\nbest he can do is to offer prayers for a safe and speedy return.\nOn the call for the question, the MOTION FAILED by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Vice Mayor Gilmore and Councilmember Matarrese -\n2. Noes : Councilmember deHaan and Mayor Johnson - 2. Abstentions\n:\nCouncilmember Daysog - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-086)\n-\nConsideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Planning Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft for appointment to\nthe Planning Board.\n(06-087) Councilmember deHaan stated that he attended the Catellus\nworkshop; approximately 40 people attended; concerns were expressed\nregarding properly utilizing the waterfront; at least 1 million\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 13, "text": "square feet of retail space is planned; developers should be\nadvised of what the community wants and needs; the City does not\nhave to take whatever is being offered anymore; he is concerned\nwith the irst-come-first-serve - - - philosophy ; stated he was one of\nthe strongest advocates in allowing South Shore to be developed to\nfull potential; he has problems with South Shore wanting more space\nand all pieces of the pie.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Catellus has made formal\napplications to change entitlements.\nThe City Manager responded the City is in negotiations with\nCatellus; stated Catellus is going through a public input process.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that Catellus was conducting the\npublic process.\nMayor Johnson stated the public should be aware that the Catellus\nand Del Monte projects are not a done deal.\nCouncilmember Daysog suggested spending $20,000 to $25,000 on a\nstatistically valid survey of 900 residents to get a sample of the\nCity's thoughts regarding retail needs.\n(06-088) Councilmember Matarrese stated a portable \"Cigarettes\nCheaper\" sign has been placed in the landscaping off of the Park\nStreet Bridge before Blanding Avenue.\n(06-089) Councilmember Matarrese stated an AC Transit Inter-Agency\nLiaison Committee meeting was scheduled for tomorrow; he has\nrequested information regarding the Emery-go-Round in the past;\nrequested that the City Manager obtain information on the operating\ncosts, routes, etc. from the City of Emeryville if information is\nnot provided at the meeting tomorrow; a similar system could be a\ngood mitigation factor for congestion caused by development.\nMayor Johnson suggested obtaining information on the City of San\nLeandro shuttle.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Emery-go-Round is fare box free and\nis very effective.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the San Leandro shuttle is fare\nbox free also; transportation funds were used for the service.\nCouncilmember Matarrese noted information should be obtained on the\nHumphrey-go-Bart shuttle services operated by the University of\nCalifornia, Berkeley.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 14, "text": "(06-090) Vice Mayor Gilmore stated that residents living near\nbusiness districts have an issue with litter being left from fast\nfood restaurants; a resident sent her a link to a\nnewspaper article regarding Oakland imposing a mandated City\nfee on business owners for trash pickup; stated she is\nnot suggesting imposing a similar fee but that Council should\nreview the strategy.\n(06-091) Councilmember Daysog requested information on fire\ninspection costs which he requested in the past.\nThe City Manager stated that she would provide Councilmember\nDaysog with a copy of the fee structure.\n(06-092) Councilmember deHaan stated that signs were posted\nthroughout the City to buy merchandise at a home on Valentine's\nDay i he feels that doing so is pushing the envelop to the extreme.\nstated that Kentucky Fried Chicken near Park Avenue smells of well- -\ncooked oil; newly constructed restaurants have scrubbers for\nventilation; requested staff to review how the odor can be\nremedied.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City could adopt an\nordinance requiring more filters.\nVice Mayor Gilmore suggesting reviewing whether another entity\nregulates the issue.\n(06-093) Mayor Johnson stated issues have been discussed at Youth\nCollaborative meetings regarding the youth in the community;\nsuggested that the Council consider forming a Youth Advisory\nCouncil or have youth representatives on to certain boards and\ncommissions; volunteer opportunities are available for students,\nbut paying job opportunities are scarce; the Golf Course had a\npolicy regarding not hiring students under eighteen years old in\nthe past; the policy has changed so that 16 year old students can\nbe hired; suggested that the matter be placed on a City Council\nagenda.\n(06-094) Mayor Johnson inquired whether anything was being done\nregarding the fire cleanup at Central Avenue and Park Street.\nThe City Manager responded that the Planning Director was working\non regulatory remedies.\nMayor Johnson stated that blight has lasted for many years in\nthe downtown district.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 15, "text": "(06-095) Mayor Johnson stated that a Councilmember Reporting\nsection should be added to the agenda to allow Councilmembers to\nreport on conferences and meetings.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that the section could be added under\nCommunications and could include the City Manager.\nMayor Johnson stated that other Department Heads should be included\nalso.\n(06-096) Mayor Johnson stated that she recently attended the U.S.\nConference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. ; the Conference includes\ncities with populations higher than 40,000; power, Base, and\nHousing Authority issues are very impacted by federal statues and\npolicies; the federal government is trying to turn over franchising\ntelecommunications to the State rather than local governments;\nstated that she is on the Economic Development and Housing\nSubcommittee as well as Electric Power Subcommittee.\nADJOURNMENT\n(06-097) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe Regular Meeting at 10:52 p.m. in a moment of silence with\nthoughts and prayers that all service members in Iraq are safe and\ncome home as soon as possible.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -FEBRUARY 21, 2006- -6:01 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 6:55 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(06-072) Conference with Labor Negotiators - Agency Negotiators:\nMarie Gilmore and Frank Matarrese; Employee: City Attorney.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that the Council discussed the City\nAttorney employment agreement.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:50 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 17, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION, AND\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 21, 2006- -7:25 P. M.\nMayor/Chair Johnson convened the Special Joint Meeting at 7:57 p.m.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority/Board Member Matarrese led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers/Commissioners/Authority/\nBoard Members Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority/Board Member deHaan moved\napproval of the Consent Calendar.\n ouncilmember/Commissioner/Authority/Board\nMember\nMatarrese\nseconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nCITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION\n( *06-073CC/06-004CIC)\nMinutes of the Special Joint City Council\nand Community Improvement Commission Meeting held on February 7,\n2006. Approved.\nCITY COUNCIL, ALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, AND\nCOMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION\n(*06-074 CC/06-005 CIC)\nRecommendation to amend the Policy\nregarding Procedures for the Hiring of Special Legal Counsel.\nAccepted.\nHOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION\nRecommendation to adopt the Policy regarding Procedures for the\nHiring of Special Legal Counsel. Accepted; and\nResolution No. 780, \"Revising the Rules and Procedures of the\nHousing Authority of the City of Alameda Regarding Powers and\nDuties of General Counsel and Procedures for Hiring of Special\nLegal Counsel. \" Adopted.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n1\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 18, "text": "AGENDA ITEM\nCITY COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION ACTION\n(06-075 CC/06-006 CIC) Recommendation to amend two loans to the\nAlameda Development Corporation for 626 Buena Vista Avenue, Alameda\nand provide up to $1.2 million in subsidy to fund eight units of\naffordable ownership housing.\nThe Development Services Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan stated it is a pleasure to be at\nthis point of the process; partnering with Habitat for Humanity is\nexcellent each unit has a heavy subsidy as high as $220,000\nbecause of the housing market; inquired whether the Alameda\nDevelopment Corporation (ADC) was an outgrowth of the Council.\nGreg Fujita, ADC President, responded in the affirmative; stated\nADC's history was based on a 60% homeownership goal eight years\nago; the Homeownership Taskforce suggested formation of a non-\nprofit.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan inquired whether ADC was involved\nat the Bayport development as well.\nMr. Fujita responded in the affirmative; stated ADC was performing\nthe buyer selection process for Bayport, RCD and School District\nprojects.\nThe Development Services Director noted that ADC also performed the\nKaufman and Broad buyer selection process.\nVice Mayor/Commissioner Gilmore stated that the staff report\nincluded a cost proforma; the 10% hard construction contingency\ncaught her eye; other City projects have had 15% to 20%\ncontingencies. inquired whether the 10% contingency was realistic.\nThe Development Services Director responded that the project's\npartners have experience and seem very comfortable and confident\nwith the budget.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the subsidy was\nmoney that could only be used for housing programs.\nThe Development Services Director responded in the affirmative.\nstated the sources include federal home funds, tax increment\nspecifically restricted to affordable housing, and affordable\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n2\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-02-21", "page": 19, "text": "housing funds.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Daysog inquired whether the funds were\nfor some type of housing program, and whether the subsidy was\nfulfilling the original mandates, to which the Development Services\nDirector responded in the affirmative to both.\nincilmember/Commissioner Matarrese moved approval of the staff\nrecommendation with recognition of the people involved in the\nprocess.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner Matarrese stated the money was set aside\nfor housing to meet a need that is nowhere near fulfilled.\nCouncilmember/Commissioner deHaan seconded the motion, which\ncarried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint Meeting at 8:07 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary,\nCommunity\nImprovement\nCommission\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council and\n3\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nFebruary 21, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-02-21.pdf"}