{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 6, 2007- - -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular Meeting at 7:44 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\n***\nMayor Johnson called a recess at 7:44 p.m. to hold the Alameda\nPublic Improvement Corporation meeting and reconvened the Regular\nCity Council meeting at 7:46 p.m.\n***\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(07-046) Mayor Johnson announced that the consideration of Appeal\n[paragraph no. 07-058] would be continued to the March 6, 2007 City\nCouncil meeting at the request of the Appellant.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-047) Proclamation declaring the period of January 30, 2007 to\nApril 4, 2007 as A Season for Nonviolence. Continued to February\n20, 2007.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Recommendation to adopt\nSpecifications [paragraph no. 07-050], Introduction of Ordinance\n[paragraph no. 07-055], and Final Passage of Ordinances [paragraph\nno. 07-056] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n( *07-048) Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on January 16, 2007. Approved.\n(*07-049) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,622,716.97\n(07-0050) Recommendation to adopt Specifications and authorize Call\nfor Bids for three marked police vehicles.\nThe Police Chief gave a brief presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 2, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated he requested that the item be pulled\nbecause the City has a vehicle selection policy that starts with\nelectric vehicles and continues with availability and practicality\nof vehicle use; the staff report notes that an alternative fuel\nvehicle does not meet the Police Department's needs; compressed\nnatural gas was the alternative fuel for a Crown Victoria, but the\nalternative fuel cars are no longer in production.\nThe Police Chief stated compressed natural gas is not available as\na standard item with Ford Motor Company or any other company making\na police vehicle; there are design issues in terms of idling for\nlong periods of time and limited trunk space; ample trunk space is\nneeded for equipment.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that future staff reports include\nsteps taken to evaluate that the recommended vehicle is the most\npractical solution.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the three vehicles are the only\nvehicles being replaced this year, to which the Police Chief\nresponded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the three vehicles reached the\nmileage point for replacement.\nThe Police Chief responded the three vehicles are in excess of\n95,000 miles.\nThe City Manager stated three police motorcycles would be replaced\nat a later date.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the three motorcycles\nwould be evaluated the same way in terms fuel efficiency.\nThe Police Chief responded the motorcycles have the same issues as\nthe police vehicles.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the Crown Victoria is still\nbeing produced.\nThe Police Chief responded that Ford Motor Company had reported\nthat 2009 would be the last year that the Crown Victoria would be\nproduced; stated Ford Motor Company reconsidered the matter and\nplans to continue production.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Ford Motor Company was\nlooking at alternative fuel sources; stated taxicabs using natural\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 3, "text": "gas have factory-type installations.\nThe Police Chief responded technology will continue to advance in\nthe next few years; stated alternative fuel sources would be\nmonitored at trade shows.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the meter enforcement vehicles are\ngas or electric, to which the Police Chief responded electric.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated more creativity is needed as the\nCity replaces fleet vehicles; the Crown Victoria was the standard\nat a time when gas was cheap police departments around the world\nuse smaller, more Fuel-efficient cars.\nVice Mayor Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation with the\nnotation that staff evaluated potential alternative fuel source\nvehicles.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(\n*07-051) Recommendation to authorize the Fire Chief to enter into\na Memorandum of Agreement with the City of Oakland to participate\nin the California Task Force #4 Urban Search and Rescue Team.\nAccepted.\n(*07-052) Resolution No. 14065, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Island City Landscaping and Lighting District 84-2. \"\nAdopted.\n( *07-053) Resolution No. 14066, \"Appointing an Engineer and an\nAttorney for Maintenance Assessment District 01-1 (Marina Cove) . \"\nAdopted.\n(*07-054) Resolution No. 14067, \"Approving Revised Memorandum of\nUnderstanding Between the Alameda City Employees Association and\nthe City of Alameda for the Period Commencing July 1, 2006 and\nEnding June 30, 2009. \" Adopted.\n(\n07-055) Introduction of Ordinance to Repeal the Existing Time\nLimit for Incurring Debt in the Business and Waterfront Improvement\nProject. Introduced.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nDavid Kirwin, Alameda, urged Council to give the community a choice\non whether or not to use bonds.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 4, "text": "explanation on the advantages and disadvantages.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded forty\nyears is the typical lifespan for a redevelopment agency stated a\nnumber of redevelopment project areas were adopted prior to 1994;\nlocal jurisdictions adopted time limits for issuing debt; bonds\nwere issued up to a certain time, after which the ability to issue\ndebt went away because that is what the City preferred.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired how 2011 was established.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she did\nnot know; stated the project area was pre-1994; the West End\nCommunity Improvement Project (WECIP) does not have the same\nrequirements; the Alameda Business Improvement Area has the ability\nto issue debt through the life of the project area; efforts are\nbeing made to bring BWIP into conformity with the other two project\nareas.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired why the issue was not addressed in\n2003.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded staff\nwas dealing with the [WECIP] project area where time limits were\nexpiring; stated 2011 seemed far away; there was time to address\nthe BWIP time limits.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether consideration was given to\nimpacts on other taxing entities; further inquired whether the\nSchool District would be impacted.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded all\nentities have pass-through agreements; stated AB 1290 sets pass-\nthroughs statutorily; the School District receives some portion of\nthe proceeds ; the City provided assistance with the Ruby Bridges\nElementary School and joint use park; the School District benefits.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated money would not be going to other\ntaxing entities after 35 years; some money goes to the County.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated every\ntaxing entity reaps the benefits of increased property values when\nthe project area goes away.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the clock would start over again by\nmerging with another development area.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated she was not\nsure whether the clock would start over by merging with another\nproject.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the BWIP final date is\n2025.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded she is\nnot sure whether the final date extends another twenty years passed\n2011.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the ability to pay back\nbonds out of proceeds would be compromised by being close to the\nend of the redevelopment area time limit.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded in the\nnegative stated outstanding debt can be serviced with the\ncollection of sufficient increments at the end of the project time\nlimit.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why timing is not being set;\nstated the City would have ten years to pay the bond back if the\nbond was issued on the last day.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nlimits are set automatically by statue stated tax increments can\nbe collected for another ten years after the project area expires.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 6, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese inquired whether ten years is sufficient,\nto which the Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\nin the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether tax increment can be collected after\nthe redevelopment period ends.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded only the\namount of any outstanding debt owed.\nMayor Johnson stated the tax increment is a benefit to the City;\nthe City keeps the money instead of sending the money to the State\nor other jurisdictions.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether a statutory control\nprevents the City from over bonding.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated the City\nwould not be able to issue a bond without the capacity to repay the\nbond within the legal time limits.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether bond issuance could go to the\nballot.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded the\nproposed ordinance does not have an impact on Council's decision to\nput bonds before the people for a vote.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved introduction of the ordinance.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(\n07-056) Ordinance No. 2961, \"Reclassifying and Rezoning Property\nLocated Adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and Grand Street from M-2,\nGeneral Industrial (Manufacturing District to MX, Mixed Use\nPlanned Development District (MX) \" Finally passed; and\n(07-056A) Ordinance No. 2962, \"Approving Master Plan MP05-01 - for a\nMixed Use Development Including Single-Family Residential,\nRecreational Marina, Maritime Commercial, and Open Space Uses,\nLocated Within a Project Area Encompassing Approximately 8.36 Acres\nof Land and Water at the Intersection of Grand Street and the\nOakland Estuary. Finally passed.\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she would abstain from voting on the\nmatter.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 7, "text": "Counci lmember Matarrese moved final passage of the ordinances.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore,\nMatarrese, and Mayor Johnson - 4. Abstentions Vice Mayor Tam - 1.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-057) Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development needs\nfor Community Development Block Grant Annual Plan.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager gave a brief Power\nPoint presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated she would like to know more about the East Bay\nCommunity Mediation (EBCM) services.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated training services\nare provided; staffing is on a volunteer basis; volunteers are\ncertified through a 40-hour training program.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether volunteers are required to provide\nmediation services.\nThe Community Development Program Manager responded in the\nnegative; stated experience has shown that volunteers have a\npersonal commitment to provide mediation services.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether other cities use EBCM.\nThe Community Development Program Manager responded in the\naffirmative; stated funding would be one-time.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Teen Center would qualify for\nCommunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds.\nThe Community Development Program Manager responded the West End\nTeen Center is funded through the Boys and Girls Club.\nMayor Johnson stated she was referencing the Teen Club in the Elk's\nLodge basement; the Teen Center needs improvement.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated funds are\nfor public services, not physical improvements; staff can research\nthe matter and bring it back to Council in April.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether tonight's discussion was for the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 8, "text": "balance of Fiscal Year 2006-2007.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager responded\ntonight's hearing was for Fiscal Year 2007-2008.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Council is being requested to\napprove funding for the listed public services, to which the Base\nReuse and Community Development Manager responded in the negative.\nMayor Johnson stated she would like to do something for the Teen\nCenter.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated information\nwould be provided to Council in April.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether $15,000 could be better spent\non existing public services.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager stated some other\npublic services were augmented, such as BANANAS, Inc. and the Red\nCross.\nThe Base Reuse and Community Development Manager continued with the\nPower Point presentation.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nCyndy Wasko, Social Service Human Relations Board (SSHRB)\nPresident, commented on the SSHRB's recommended service needs and\nfunding allocation.\nPriscilla Kindley, Alameda, spoke about the difficulty that low-\nincome families face in securing affordable housing in Alameda.\nMayor Johnson suggested that Ms. Kindley follow up with the\nAssistant City Manager.\nNoel W. Folsom, Homeless Network Chair, urged Council to follow the\nSSHRB's recommendations.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the federal government has cut\nback on Section 8 housing; Alameda has fewer vouchers than the\ndemand.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\n(07-058) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 9, "text": "Commission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at\nPond Isle, and authorization to install new bus stops at Otis Drive\nand Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street. Continued to\nMarch 6, 2007.\n(07-059 - ) Recommendation to accept comprehensive Sidewalk Repair\nProgram and adopt Plans and Specifications and authorize Call for\nBids for the Fiscal Year 2006-2007 repair of Portland Cement\nConcrete sidewalk, curb, gutter, driveway and minor street\npatching, No. P. W. 08-06-18.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer provided a Power Point Presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired who filled in the areas around the Shoreline\nDrive trees with concrete, to which the Associate Civil Engineer\nresponded that he was not sure.\nMayor Johnson suggested looking into an ordinance that would\nprevent homeowners from filling in the area around trees.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer stated staff would look into the\nmatter.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether staff is proactively encouraging\nhomeowners to use drought tolerant plants; further inquired whether\ndrought tolerate trees are being considered for the Master Tree\nPlan.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer responded information could be\nprovided to homeowners through the City's website or leaflets.\nVice Mayor Tam stated an ordinance would be better.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Bayport planting strips are very\nsmall; trees are very aggressive; sidewalks are being replaced\nevery five to ten years; inquired whether repair would be less\noften if the staff recommendations are followed.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer responded repair should be less often;\nstated branch trimming has not been done in the last few years but\nwould be incorporated into the Master Tree Plan.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many deteriorated sidewalks are not the\nresult of tree issues; inquired whether the matter has been\nreviewed.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer responded concrete will deteriorate in\neighty years; stated the homeowner is responsible for repairing the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 10, "text": "sidewalk if the City is not responsible for the damage; letters are\nsent to homeowners requesting that the sidewalk be repaired.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City could provide homeowners\nwith the name of a sidewalk repair contractor.\nThe Associate Civil Engineer responded homeowners are provided with\nthe name of the City's Contractor in order to get a better rate.\nThe Public Works Director stated homeowners are provided with the\nname of the City's Contractor; the cost would be twice as much as\nthe bid price if the City did the work through the Contractor ;\nmobilization and demobilization costs are higher for smaller areas.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether homeowners could get a better price\nby getting a bid through the City's Contractor, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the permit fee could be\nwaived by using the City's Contractori stated the permit fee is $80\nto $90.\nThe Public Works Director responded permit fees are waived for the\nfirst 25 linear feet of sidewalk replacement.\nMayor Johnson suggested putting the City's sidewalk repair\nContractor contact information on the City's website.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked staff for a very detailed report;\ninquired whether residents are provided with care and feeding\ninformation when trees are planted; stated most homeowners do not\nknow the consequences of improper watering.\nThe Public Works Director stated young trees need deep watering in\nthe first three to five years.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the first step is educating the\npublic.\nThe Public Works Director stated a PVC sleeve would be used with\nall new sidewalk replacements.\nMayor Johnson stated money would be saved in the long run if proper\nsteps are taken; money is saved when tree pruning is eliminated,\nbut costs are incurred when sidewalk, streets, and gutters are\ndamaged.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the hearing.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 11, "text": "Proponents ( In favor of staff recommendation) : Dave Needle,\nFernside Homeowners Association; Jon Spangler, Alameda; Ron Bishop,\nOakland (submitted handout) ; Rob Ratto, PSBA; Michael J. Torrey,\nAlameda; Christopher Buckley, Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nMayor Johnson thanked Mr. Buckley for his personal interest in City\ntrees.\nCouncilmember Matarrese applauded staff for the presentation;\nstated he likes the approach given to signature trees; inquired\nwhether the scope would be for City trees in general, not just\nstreet trees.\nThe City Engineer responded the plan is to look at trees that fit\nwithin the neighborhood; stated the focus is on the landscape\nstrip.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated people are excited about sidewalk\nrepair; the staff recommendation is solid; he likes the idea of\nupdating the Master Tree Plan; stated a different tree was planted\non Gibbons Drive.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether attention would be given to planting\nthe same type tree on major streets; stated the replanted Gibbons\nDrive tree is different.\nThe City Engineer responded a Red Oak was planted on Gibbons Drive\nstated Liquid Ambers require a wider base; a larger base would\nrequire encroaching on private property; the Red Oak is similar to\nLiquid Ambers.\nMayor Johnson stated major street trees should be consistent; Palm\nStreets should be replanted on Eighth Street and Burbank Avenue.\nsuggested looking at the Eucalyptus tree on Encinal Avenue between\nFernside Boulevard and High Street stated houses would be damaged\nif the tree fell; requested that staff take a look at the tree to\nensure sturdiness.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Climate Protection Campaign Task\nForce should review the Master Tree Plan; biomass should be\nincreased; the cost is worth the price; payback is not only in\nlooks but also in sequestering carbon dioxide.\nCounci lmember deHaan stated Sycamore Trees do not displace\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 12, "text": "concrete; many trees are missing throughout the City; infill needs\nto be aggressive.\nMayor Johnson stated cement needs to be removed from the areas\naround the Shoreline Drive trees; an ordinance might be necessary\nto deal with the problem.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of staff recommendation.\nMayor Johnson stated the motion should include that the Master Tree\nPlan come back to Council.\nCouncilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include that the\nMaster Tree Plan return to Council.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-060) Eugenie Young, Alameda, submitted handout ; discussed\nbringing a cruise port to Alameda Point.\n(07-061) Art Javier, Alameda, expressed his support for a cruise\nport at Alameda Point.\nMayor Johnson stated the Development Services Department is looking\ninto the matter.\n(07-062) Deborah James, Alameda, stated existing bus routes need\nto be serviced; AC Transit does not respond to complaints.\nMayor Johnson stated AC Transit representatives attend some of the\nTransportation Commission meetings.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Elsa Ortiz is the City's AC Transit\nrepresentative suggested that Ms. James contact Ms. Ortiz.\nMs. James noted Ruth Herch passed away in September; Ms. Herch\nhelped the Harbor Island Apartment residents through difficult\ntimes.\n(07-063) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed cruise ships.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(\n07-064) Selection of Councilmember and alternate to serve as the\nLeague of California Cities East Bay Division representative.\nMayor Johnson stated Vice Mayor Tam and Councilmember deHaan\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 13, "text": "expressed interest in serving as the League's representative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated currently Vice Mayor Tam is serving a\nPresidential appointment on a sub-committee; it would most\nefficient if she was also the City's representative to the\nCalifornia League of Cities.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of Vice Mayor Tam serving as\nthe League's representative.\nMayor Johnson stated that Councilmember deHaan could serve as the\nalternate.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of Councilmember deHaan\nserving as the League's alternate.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nMayor Johnson stated that the job is huge; suggested that Vice\nMayor Tam and Councilmember deHaan work together to cover more\nground.\nVice Mayor Tam stated she is in support of dividing the\nresponsibilities for representing the City; Councilmember deHaan\ncould attend the East Bay Division meetings; she will try to work\non regional issues.\n(\n07-065) Consideration of Mayor's nomination for appointment to\nthe Housing Commission.\nMayor Johnson nominated Walter Schlueter for appointment to the\nHousing Commission.\n(07-066) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda's deep water port is\nan asset; the matter was previously reviewed and there was no\ninterest in cruise ships coming to the former Naval Air Station; he\ncontinues to endorse reviewing cruise ship port options at Alameda\nPoint ; Pier 3 should be considered.\n(07-067) Councilmember deHaan requested that the City Manager\nshare thoughts expressed at the Joint City Council and Golf\nCommission meeting.\nThe City Manager stated an operations review would be conducted\nRequest for Proposals (RFP) will be initiated similar to the RFP\nconducted for the telecom division of Alameda Power and Telecom\n(AP&T) .\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 14, "text": "(07-068) Councilmember deHaan stated Council discussed setting\naside $20,000 to $30,000 to review a salt water pump station;\nAlameda's housing stock would be vulnerable in an earthquake;\na\nfeasibility study should be conducted.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the City of Berkeley conducted a\nfeasibility study; stated the Fire Department has not provided\nCouncil with sufficient information; Alameda could use the City of\nBerkeley's information if a study was conducted; she would like the\nFire Department to provide information on whether or not the system\nis feasible.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the information could be weaved into\nthe Disaster Plan.\nThe City Manager stated staff is in the process of developing the\nDisaster Mitigation Plan; staff will provide a report on what other\ncities are doing.\nMayor Johnson stated San Francisco is charged with developing an\nEmergency Response Plan; requested that staff investigate whether\nAlameda has a representative attending the meetings.\n(07-069) Councilmember deHaan stated Alameda was established as an\nelectric City in the late 1990's; requested the program be reviewed\nand reinstated.\n(07-070) Mayor Johnson stated she attended the Annual Mayor's\nConference in Washington, D.C. during the week of January 23;\nCommunity Development Block Grant/Section 8 cuts are always a\nthreat but are usually reinstated; interest in alternative power\nsources, greenhouse gases, and global warming has increased; the\nMayor's Conference does a lot to advocate for cities.\nADJOURNMENT\n(07-071) - There being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned\nthe meeting at 10:07 p.m. in a moment of silence for Ruth Herch.\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\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-02-06", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -FEBRUARY 6, 2007- 7-00 - p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 7:10 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam, and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe Special Meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(07-045 ) Conference with Labor Negotiators; Agency Negotiators:\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :\nAlameda City Employees Association and Police Association Non-\nSworn.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that Council received a briefing from\nits Labor Negotiators; no action was taken.\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\nFebruary 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-02-06.pdf"}