{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 18, 2006- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:42 p.m. Boy Scout\nTroop 73 led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmember Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(06-365) Presentation by the Park Street Business Association\n(PSBA) on the 22nd Annual Art and Wine Faire.\nBlake Brydon, Art and Wine Faire Chair, presented glasses to the\nMayor and Council invited everyone to the Faire.\n(06-366) Presentation to the Fourth of July Parade Committee\nrecognizing their efforts for a successful Mayor's Fourth of July\nParade.\nMayor Johnson thanked the committee for the hard work; stated the\ncommittee helps to financially support school bands.\nBarbara Price, Fourth of July Parade Committee Chair, presented T-\nshirts to the Mayor and Council; introduced the committee members ;\nstated $31,000 was raised.\nMayor Johnson stated there was a picnic at Rittler Park after the\nparade for the Coast Guard and family members presented\ncertificates to committee members.\n(06-367) Presentation regarding the World Masters Swim\nChampionship to be held on August 11, 2006\nLinda Gilcrist and Paul White submitted a handout; outlined the\nevent's activities and encouraged anyone interested to volunteer.\n(06-368) Presentation and update on Alameda Development\nCorporation.\nGregg Fujita, Alameda Development Corporation (ADC) President,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 2, "text": "introduced Board Members and gave a brief presentation.\nDan Lachman, ADC Executive Director, thanked Development Services\nfor all their efforts; provided an update on the 626 Buena Vista\nAvenue project; invited everyone to the November 2006\ngroundbreaking outlined upcoming projects.\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(*06-369) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and Community Improvement Commission\nMeetings held on July 5, 2006, and the Regular City Council Meeting\nheld on July 5, 2006. Approved.\n(*06-370) - Ratified bills in the amount of $2,523,936.31.\n( *06-371) Resolution No. 14000, \"Amending Resolution No. 9460 to\nReflect Current Positions and Entities to be Included in the City\nof Alameda's Conflict of Interest Code and Rescinding Resolution\nNo. 13906. Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(06-372) Discussion of City Attorney staffing options and request\nto hire an Administrative Management Analyst.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of hiring an Administrative\nManagement Analyst.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-373) Resolution No. 14001, \"Participating in the International\nCouncil for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) Cities for\nClimate Protection Campaign and Creation of a City Task Force. \"\nAdopted; and\n(06-373A) Resolution No. 14002, \"Providing Support for Policies\nthat Promote the Development and Commercialization of Plug-In -\nHybrid Electric Vehicles as a Participant in the Plug-In Partners\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 3, "text": "National Campaign. Adopted.\nThe Supervising Planner provided a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated that plug-in - vehicles are in line with the\nCity's vehicle replacement program; she would prefer to have an\nAlameda Power and Telecom representative on the Task Force.\nThe Supervising Planner stated that a Public Utilities Board\nrepresentative would be on the Task Force.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether a Planning Board Member was\ninterested in serving on the Task Force.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the Boards and Commissions have\nnot been approached; stated various Planning Board Members are on\nsubcommittees.\nMayor Johnson stated the Task Force composition could be brought\nback to Council for review.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the Public Utilities Board President\nvolunteered to be on the Task Force last night.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether any other cities have moved\nforward on the initiative.\nThe Supervising Planner responded all cites are moving forward\ntogether data is being collected; the next process will be\nreviewing the data and setting local and regional goals.\nMayor Johnson stated that most Alameda County cities are moving\nforward with the initiative; the Alameda County Conference of\nMayors endorses the ICLEI portion.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the meeting.\nProponents (In favor of resolutions) : Carol Stone, Alameda; Karen\nButler, League of Women Voters (submitted handout) ; Joyce Mercado,\nAlameda. Edward Thorp, Alameda; Stanley M. Schiffman, Alamedans for\nClimate Protection; Ron Silberstein, Alameda; Herb Behrstock,\nAlamedans for Climate Protection; Michael J. Krueger, Alameda;\nJodie Van Horn, Plug-In - Bay Area; Marc Geller, Plug-In -\nAmerica/Electric Auto Association (submitted handout) ; Jon\nSpangler, Alameda Recycling Coalition; David Teeters, Alamedans for\nClimate Protection.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 4, "text": "portion of the meeting.\nMayor Johnson stated the number of public members should be\nincreased; the Task Force could have two additional members.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what is the Task Force's life\nexpectancy.\nThe Supervising Planner responded the process would be completed in\nMarch 2007.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the initial Task Force could be large\nand move down to a smaller oversight Task Force.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember deHaan; stated\nthere is a process that covers the assessmenti proposed that the\nresolution describe what is expected from the Task Force; some\nfunctions to consider are: 1) publicizing and engaging the general\npublic in the discussion of what ICLEI is and what the assessment\nis, 2) determining what evaluation of the output of the assessment\naffects the City and providing a recommendation to Council on\npriorities of actions that the City should take against the\nassessment points; 3) determining what policies may affect the\ngeneral public, and 4) providing future recommendations; stated a\ncentury and a half of industrial revolution habits are backing up\nbecause fuel is going awayi the impact has been demonstrated on the\nwhole planet; the process sets up an ongoing way of life for the\nCity; a commission might be recommended by the Task Force after the\nprocess is completed in March 2007.\nCouncilmember Daysog thanked the speakers for addressing the issue\nstated global warming can be reduced by 10 -20% by taking mass\ntransit or car sharing once a week.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she would like to see the Task Force\nfocus on encouraging individual citizens, and more importantly\nbusinesses in town, to do their share.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he is concerned that past efforts have\nnot been institutionalized; Alameda has been extremely successful\nin waste management, green power generation, and as an electric\ncity; emphasis is not placed on programs as time passes the City\nhas some of the basic policies and desire; the City has been a\nleader and has some of the better terrain for people to get out of\ncars and walk; focus should not be lost and should be a day-in and\nday-out lifestyle; the City was not allowed to purchase electric\ncars for Alameda Power and Telcom; Cal Start was one of the City's\nleading efforts; Alameda should be proud to be an electric city.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 5, "text": "Mayor Johnson stated Alameda has bio-diesel at the former Naval Air\nBase for power generators; the City has implemented one of the most\nprogressive and inclusive recycling programs; Alameda has been on\nthe forefront of environmental issues.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested taking a separate vote on the two\nresolutions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution\nParticipating in the ICLEI, with an amendment to increase the\npublic members at large to four members and to incorporate the\nfollowing Task Force functions: 1) publicize and engage the\ncommunity at large, 2) evaluate and provide prioritized\nrecommendations to Council on actions that can be taken on the\noutput of the assessment, 3) provide recommendations for monitoring\nof activities, and 4) provide recommendations on how to proceed,\nincluding but not limited to, establishing a standing commission.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City has many existing commissions.\nCouncil lmember Matarrese stated his recommendation was that the Task\nForce would make a recommendation to Council on the monitoring\nprocess which could include, but not be limited to, a standing\ncommission.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Transportation Commission and other\ncommissions could take on some of the role.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated existing commissions could be used,\nor a broad, standing commission could be established.\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Mayor Johnson stated that Alameda Power and\nTelecom deserves credit; 85% of the City's electricity comes from\nrenewable resources; recently the Alameda Times Star reported that\nAlameda Power and Telecom entered into a twenty-five year contract\nfor wind power; Alameda Power and Telecom purchases power from a\nSanta Cruz facility that produces electricity from gas that comes\nfrom dumps.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated Point Richmond and Livermore\nlandfill gas facilities are additional sources for Alameda Power\nand Telecom; a larger facility is anticipated at Half Moon Bay;\ntransmission costs and risks are reduced.\nMayor Johnson stated that Alameda Power and Telecom is very\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 6, "text": "aggressive about pursuing renewable energy sources.\nThe Senior Management Analyst stated that management and staff have\ndiscussed a goal for 100% renewable energy sources.\nMayor Johnson inquired what was the nationwide goal, to which the\nSenior Management Analyst responded the State's goal is 20% by\n2013.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the landfill gas is a win-win\nsituation.\nThe motion carried by consensus - 5.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested inserting \"electric\" in front of\n\"hybrid electric\" throughout the resolution because the City's\nvehicle replacement policy directs purchase of entirely electric\nvehicles first; stated the hybrid electric becomes a fuel\nefficient, gasoline driven car when driving at a high speed and\nlong distance; former Interim City Manager Bill Norton had an\nelectric Honda CRV and was able to make two round trips from\nAlameda to San Francisco between charges.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether members in the audience had\nany questions or needed clarification.\nMr. Geller stated he wanted to ensure that Council was clear on the\ndifference between hybrid electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid\nelectric vehicles, and entirely electric vehicles; the resolution\nonly relates to a hybrid vehicle that can be plugged in; today':\nhybrid vehicles cannot be plugged in; there is not option to get\nelectricity from the cleaner, cheaper domestic source.\nMayor Johnson stated that the City's number one priority is\nentirely electric.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the Resolution Providing\nSupport for Policies, with an amendment to insert \"electric or\" in\nfront of \"hybrid electric vehicles\"\nVice Mayor Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(06-374) Negotiations with the Bay Area Water Transit Authority\nRelated to Transfer of City Ferry Services.\nMayor Johnson announced that she would recuse herself on the matter\nbecause she serves on the Water Transit Authority (WTA).\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 7, "text": "The Public Works Director provided a brief presentation.\nSteve Castleberry, Water Transit Authority Executive Director,\nprovided a Power Point presentation.\nThe Ferry Services Manager provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired why the specific guarantee period was\nfive to seven years instead of fifteen to twenty years for\nmaintaining current service levels.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded Council could specify a\nfifteen or twenty-year period.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired why the City could not get ferry\nservices and funding back if the WTA reduced service levels.\nThe Ferry Services Manager responded he did not want to commit the\nCity to take back ferry services if grant funding fell short of\nactual operation expenses during the intervening years.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the WTA is receiving some core funding ;\nthe City should get back the boats and revenue if the WTA does not\nperform.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the condition of the ferries might\ndeteriorate and the City would need to get additional funding to\nbring the ferries back into operation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the City needs to be protected; the\nCity should have the option to take back the ferry services if\ntrips are reduced below what the City is accustomed to at the end\nof the guarantee period, rather than the original number of trips\nat the time of transfer; the City cannot afford to go back to the\noriginal service levels because of Alameda Point build out; he\nwould like a real guarantee that the City would get the boats and\nfunding back in order to maintain the service level the City needs\nin the event reductions are ever proposed.\nThe Ferry Services Manager inquired whether Councilmember Matarrese\nmeant that if there were ten round trips per day at the time of\ntransfer and the WTA increases the trips to fifteen round trips per\nday, the trigger point would be whether the WTA proposed to reduce\nthe round trips to below fifteen, to which Councilmember Matarrese\nresponded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated that getting back the same boats with a\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 8, "text": "longer guarantee period is highly unlikely; provisions need to be\nmade.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the likelihood of an agreement falling\napart would indicate a total disaster with the ferry service; the\nWTA is an authority that should have some long standing.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated his biggest fear is that a 75,000\nperson city would take second place to larger surrounding cities ;\nAlameda has the most need for a ferry system; he is concerned that\nAlameda might get a trip reduction after seventeen years in favor\nof adding an additional trip for another city; Alameda does not\nhave a chance of getting another bridge or tube; everything needs\nto be done to ensure that Alameda's needs are on top of the pile.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he feels that the City could keep\nrunning the ferry services for the next five to ten years; the\nquestion is how long the storm can be weathered and whether there\nis a commitment from the State; the City could be stranded;\ninquired whether any future legislation would strengthen the WTA's\nposition.\nMr. Castleberry responded he believes so; a significant amount of\nfunds are set aside for transit services in the November ballot\ninfrastructure bond that can provide emergency response during\nrecovery of a disaster; stated the details of the bond still need\nto be worked out; the WTA believes the bond will be an investment\nin the ferry service.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired what was the WTA's annual budget.\nMr. Castleberry responded the WTA currently receives $3 million per\nyear for ongoing operations; another $3 million per year will be\navailable through Regional Measure 2 funds once operations begin\nfor South San Francisco; another $3 million per year will be\nreceived when the Berkeley operation starts.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether there are funds for Alameda.\nMr. Castleberry responded there is approximately $6 million per\nyear in Regional Measure 2 funds for expanded service in Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the WTA is planning on taking\nover other services, and whether the WTA is in negotiations with\nother local authorities.\nMr. Castleberry responded the WTA is in discussions with the City\nof Vallejo; the City of Tiburon has approached the WTA for help\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 9, "text": "which probably would not be feasible South San Francisco and\nBerkeley are new ferry services.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether existing service is a focus\nof the WTA.\nMr. Castleberry responded the WTA does not have any authority over\nAlameda services; the WTA's only legislative mandate is on new\nservices.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated there are benefits and disadvantages in\nbeing first with a new service; inquired whether schedules are the\nWTA's forte.\nMr. Castleberry responded the WTA looks at schedules as low fruit;\nschedules can be done at a fairly low cost to make the mode better\nfor the riders.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he appreciates the WTA's efforts to\nhelp market the City's ferry services i inquired whether the\nMetropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) would always be a\nplayer for the WTA's funding stream.\nMr. Castleberry responded MTC administers Regional Measure 2 funds\nMTC would touch 90% of the WTA's operating funds.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how the WTA would be better at\nworking with MTC for farebox relief.\nMr. Castleberry responded MTC reviews and evaluates services\nseparately; MTC does not evaluate bus companies on a route-by-route\nbasis; the WTA believes marketing is not just for one route, but\nfor both.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated he thinks the City could do the same\nthing as the WTA.\nMr. Castleberry stated that the WTA would put all resources in the\nfarebox relief because the farebox ratio is unfair.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated she thinks that staff does a wonderful\njob of running the ferry services; she needs incentives from the\nWTA, such as having more access to funds and having the opportunity\nto improve the ferry services, before considering turning the ferry\nservice over; she does not see any reason to turn the ferry service\nover to the WTA; inquired whether route timing would be systemized;\nstated that she is interested in having ferry connections to buses\nand trains for the South San Francisco and Redwood City ferry\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 10, "text": "services; bicycle riders are complaining that the ferries do not\nhave enough room for bikes; bike accommodations would be an\nimprovement.\nMr. Castleberry stated the WTA would not believe that transferring\nCity ferry services is a good idea if riders would not benefit; the\nWTA is eligible for funds that the City is not; 25% of operating\nfunds would be for landside connections; transit agencies can be\npaid to cooperate; boats are being designed to carry 100 bikes.\nJon Spangler, Alameda, stated he was impressed with the WTA's\npresentation; he is not an opponent or proponent at this point he\nis concerned with 1) possible affects on cross-estuary services, 2)\nwhat the WTA would offer to reduce ticket prices, 3) greener\npropulsion systems and other green initiatives, including solar and\nsail powered ferries, 4) guarantees for customer services, and 5)\nbike commute provisions.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated people in Alameda love the ferry\nsystem; the two Alameda ferry systems service particular markets;\nhe is not inclined to move forward with the negotiations; key\npoints need to be considered; funding streams should be given back\nif boats are given back; concurred with Vice Mayor Gilmore's\ncomments regarding getting the same boats back with a longer\nguarantee period.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how much discussions would cost,\nto which the Ferry Services Manager responded the discussions would\ncost staff's time.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would not be done while WTA\ndiscussions are conducted; stated he would like to have an analysis\nof the two paths going forward; Council could make a decision on\nwhether it is worthwhile to tie up staff time to get $200,000 and\ngive up local control; he is not willing to authorize discussions\nuntil the analysis is made.\nVice Mayor Gilmore stated one of the key issues has to be\nprotection of Alameda's services because the ferry system is a\nnecessity; protection is necessary in case the Oakland to South San\nFrancisco run becomes more profitable and Alameda services are cut.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's question regarding the\ncost for discussions, the Public Works Director stated the\napproximate cost would be $15,000.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired what would not be done while\nnegotiations were conducted, to which the Public Works Director\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 11, "text": "responded marketing and customer relations.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the City is going to be in a\nhealthy financial position to replace boats in five years.\nThe Public Works Director responded that he is not sure that the\nCity would be able to expand the services based on current or\nprojected funding there is a significant decrease in the funding\nOakland has given the City; there is no indication that additional\nfunding would be provided; Oakland could opt out; if so, the\nmajority of the farebox recovery for the Alameda/Oakland Ferry\nService would go away.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with being the\nfirst one in the water; pieces have been put together to keep\nthings flowing; he is concerned that the WTA does not have the\ncomplete wherewithal to make the transfer a priority; the issue is\na tough decision; concurred with Councilmember Matarrese regarding\ndeciding whether to negotiate.\nThe Public Works Director stated staff brought the matter to\nCouncil because of a previous Council's request.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired whether other ferry systems are being\nrequested to joint the WTA, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Gilmore inquired whether there are competitive grants\nthat the City could apply for to bridge the funding gap; stated\nCouncil discussed the concept of hiring a grant writer in the past.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the negative; stated the\nCity receives a bulk of Regional Measure 1 funding; the City is not\na transit agency transit agencies receive federal money; the WTA\nhas access to Regional Measure 2 funds.\nMr. Castleberry stated that Regional Measure 2 funds set aside $6\nmillion per year for operating costs and some capital for the\nAlameda/Oakland ferry service.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated it is odd that the City does not\nhave access to money to expand its services. requested reasons in\nbullet point format for entertaining the possible transfer of the\nCity's ferry services to the WTA; requested an explanation on why\n$6 million is available to the WTA and not the City for expanding\nAlameda ferry services; suggested reviewing the possibility of\nchanging the rule or getting an exception so that the City can\nentertain the possibility of obtaining the funding.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 12, "text": "Vice Mayor Gilmore stated the City needs to get some tangible\nbenefit for transferring the ferry service.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he does not want to waste\nstaff's or WTA's time if there are no good, solid reasons for the\ntransfer.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of bringing the matter back\nto Council with consolidated information.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the matter does not need to be fast\ntracked; Council needs to better understand what the parties bring\nto the table; more information needs to be gathered he would like\nto have staunch, feedback points brought back to Council to ensure\nthat the WTA is right on track; the transfer could be the marriage\nof the century, or possibly not.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Daysog stated that he previously\nabstained on the matter; he will vote no on the matter tonight the\nCity should get back to the regular business of running and\nmanaging the ferry system.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated an agreement does not need to be\nsigned, and negotiations do not need to be initiated; Council is\nrequesting that both sides get together to provide information on\nthe future and commitments that can be made.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he will still vote no on the\nmatter; he may change his vote in the future.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: louncilmembers deHaan, Gilmore and Matarrese - 3.\nNoes: Councilmember Daysog - 1. Abstentions: Mayor Johnson - 1.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(06-375) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, requested status on the\nParrot Park northern waterfront project; stated the children have\nnowhere to play.\nThe Acting City Manager stated the Environmental Impact Report is\nbeing prepared for the northern waterfront.\nMayor Johnson suggested the matter be referred to the Housing\nAuthority.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 13, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese stated that he received a complaint about\nthe treatment of the sycamore trees along Parrot Park.\nMayor Johnson stated the City needs to be careful on how trees are\npruned; direction was given to do a ten-year prune on Gibbons Drive\na couple of years ago.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the trees survived; the trees can take\nsevere pruning but severe pruning is not a good process.\n(06-376) The following discussed Measure A: Diane Lichtenstein,\nHousing Opportunities Make Sense (HOMES) ; Helen Sause, HOMES ;Laura\nThomas, Alameda; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Gretchen Lipow, Alameda.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(06-377) Mayor Johnson stated she received an e-mail indicating\nthe cost of solar permits in Alameda is higher than other cities;\nrequested the matter be reviewed.\n(06 -378 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated a tenant at the Clement\nAvenue storage rental facility complained about sludge seepage\nbetween storage unit concrete cracks; the tenant inquired whether\nthe City could contact the owner.\nThe Acting City Manager stated Alameda County would be contacted as\nwell to ensure there is not health issue.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that a report be brought back to\nCouncil on the matter.\n(\n06-379 - ) Councilmember deHaan requested that the possibility of\nrenaming Tinker Avenue to Willie Stargell Avenue be placed on the\nnext agenda.\n(06-380) Councilmember deHaan stated that recently retail leakage\nhas been well documented at Alameda Landing only a certain amount\nof leakage can be captured; a certain amount is needed in certain\ncategories; he would like to review limiting the number of square\nfeet in existing and future shopping centers; he would like to\ndiscuss big boxes and boxes in general requested that the matter\nbe placed on the next agenda.\n(06-381) Mayor Johnson requested that the US Conference of Mayor's\nICLEI initiative be placed on the next Council agenda under Council\nCommunicationsi stated placing the matter under Council\nCommunications would be the appropriate first step to see whether\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 14, "text": "the matter should be placed on a Council agenda for action.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:33 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -JULY 18, 2006- -5:30 P. M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:35 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(06-362) Conference with Labor Negotiators: Agency negotiators\n:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director; Employee organizations\n:\nAlameda City Employees Association, International Brotherhood of\nElectrical Workers, and Management and Confidential Employees\nAssociation.\n(06-363) Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: 2900\nMain Street ; Negotiating parties : City of Alameda and Alameda\nGateway, Ltd; Under negotiation: Price and terms.\n(06-364) Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation;\nInitiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section\n54956.9; Number of cases: Two.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Conference With Labor\nNegotiators, Council received a briefing from Labor Negotiators on\nthe status of contract negotiations and gave direction; regarding\nConference With Real Property Negotiators, Council received a\nbriefing from legal counsel and gave direction regarding\nConference With Legal Counsel, the matter was continued to July 27,\n2006.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:30 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nJuly 18, 2006", "path": "CityCouncil/2006-07-18.pdf"}
{"body": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard", "date": "2006-07-18", "page": 1, "text": "Social Service Human Relations Board\nMinutes of the Special Meeting, Tuesday, July 18, 2006\nCALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: President Bonta called meeting to order at 6:20 p.m.\nIn attendance were Vice-President Wasko, and member Franz. Staff present were Beaver and\nJones, Wright and Brown. Former staff person Liz Harris was present.\nAPPROVAL OF MINUTES: Minutes of the May 25, 2006 meeting were not approved due to\nlack of quorum. Tabled for next regular meeting.\nWORK SESSON TO REVIEW PRELIMINARY DRAFT OF COMMUNITY NEEDS\nASSESSMENT: Discussion and work session regarding the draft Community Needs\nAssessment.\nADJOURNMENT: President Bonta adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nCarol Beaver, Secretary\nSocial Service Human Relations Board\nCB:sb", "path": "SocialServiceHumanRelationsBoard/2006-07-18.pdf"}