{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 6, 2007- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the Regular City Council meeting at 7:38\np.m. Councilmember deHaan led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present : Councilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, Tam and Mayor Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(07-102) Proclamation declaring the week of March 18-24, 2007 as\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library Appreciation.\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Molly Skeen,\nFriends of the Alameda Free Library President and Karen Butter,\nLibrary Board President.\n(07-103) - Mayor Johnson announced that a Joint City Council and\nSchool Board Meeting would be held on March 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.\nat Ruby Bridges Elementary School; stated the meeting will focus on\ndiscussing cooperative programs and joint efforts.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Matarrese 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( * 07-104 - Minutes of the Special and Regular City Council Meetings\nheld on February 20, 2007 Approved.\n( *07-105) Ratified bills in the amount of $5,535,381.13.\n( *07-106) Recommendation to accept the work of AJW Construction for\nInstallation of Rubberized Sidewalk, No. P.W. 02-06-05. Accepted.\n(*07-107) Resolution No. 14074, \"Ordering Vacation of a Portion of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 2, "text": "a Power and Public Utility Easement and a Power, Public Utility and\nEast Bay Municipal Utility District Easement within Parcels 5 and 6\nof Parcel Map 4013, Filed Map Book 138, at Page 5 and 6, Alameda\nCounty Official Records. Adopted.\n( *07-108) Resolution No. 14075, \"Approving Final Map, Authorizing\nExecution of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Accepting\nEasements for Tract 7846 (626 Buena Vista Avenue). \" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(07-109) - Resolution No. 14076, \"Appointing Bill R. Delaney as a\nMember of the Golf Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nVice Mayor Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr.\nDelaney with a certificate of appointment.\n(07-110) Consideration of the Establishment of a Youth Advisory\nCommission.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson thanked staff and the Youth Collaborative for working\non the matter.\nFreshta Esmat, Home Project, encouraged formation of a Youth\nCommission; suggested the Commission report to the City Council;\nstated adequate resources are necessary; the Commission should meet\nmonthly.\nJane Sperling Wise, Home Project Director, encouraged formation of\na Youth Commission; stated the Commission needs to have a dedicated\nstaff member.\nCesar Pujolia Martinez, Home Project, encouraged formation of a\nYouth Commission; stated that the Commission should meet at least\nonce a month.\nMayor Johnson stated the City has never established a formal way\nfor youth to have a voice in the community; the Council should\nprovide comments on the Commission structure; then, staff and the\nYouth Collaborative can work on the issue and bring it back; seven\nmembers might not be enough to get a good representation of youth,\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 3, "text": "but the Commission should not be huge the group should probably\nmeet once a month; the ordinance sets the minimum amount of\nmeetings and the Commission could decide to hold additional\nmeetings as needed; the focus should not appear to be just a youth\nrecreation commission; the Commission should address broader\nissues; whether the Commission reports to the Recreation and Parks\nCommission or City Council directly, there should not appear to be\na narrow focus of recreation and sports for youth in Alameda.\nouncilmember Matarrese stated the Commission should report to the\nCity Council; transportation is an issue beyond recreation,\nparticularly with young drivers and bus riders; the Commission\nshould address congestion around schools; that he would like a\nrepresentative from each high school; the number of Commissioners\nshould be reasonable; the number of seats should be seven, nine or\neleven; a two-year term would help cycle people through; the seats\nshould be limited to high school age students.\nMayor Johnson stated that there should be eleven members; the\nnumber of members could be changed if needed; concurred that there\nshould be one representative from each high school; members should\nbe selected from among the list of other groups represented, not\nnecessarily one representative from each group having a Youth\nCommission will be a benefit to the community; the youth in Alameda\nare thoughtful and dedicated.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he concurs with the direction to\nhave two-year terms. the larger number sets up needed continuity;\nrepresentatives from the five high schools is all important;\ninquired whether or not the Alameda Youth Committee was active.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the Committee was\nfairly active but was more of a program advisory group that held\nevents and did not address policy and Citywide issues.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City is stepping into a policy type\nCommission; concurred with the idea of having the Commission report\nto the Council.\nMayor Johnson stated that she would like the Commission to address\njobs, especially summer jobs, for youth in Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated issues, such as recreation,\ntransportation and social, would provide the Youth Commission an\nopportunity to interface with other boards and commissions\nVice Mayor Tam stated that she is supportive of the formation of\nthe Commission; allowing the youth to participate more closely in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 4, "text": "government should be empowering there should be an expansive range\nto create synergies between high school and college students; in\naddition to representatives from each high school, there should be\na good geographic representation throughout the City.\nMayor Johnson requested that the ordinance include the requirement\nthat the Commission members be Alameda residents.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired when the ordinance would return to\nCouncil, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded\nforty-five - days.\n(07-111) Consideration of an Appeal of the Transportation\nCommission's decision to install new bus stops on Otis Drive at\nPond Isle, and approve staff's recommendation to install bus stops\nat Otis Drive and Sandcreek Way, and Otis Drive and Willow Street.\nThe Program Specialist II gave a brief Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the 63 travels down\nWhitehall Road and Willow Street to get to Otis Drive, to which the\nProgram Specialist II responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam stated many bus stops on Otis Drive do not have\npainted crosswalks; requested an explanation of the requirement to\ninstall crosswalks.\nThe Program Specialist II responded the crosswalk would be required\nat Pond Isle as the result of litigation involving a transit\nentity; new stops are required to have painted crosswalks; previous\nstops were grandfathered and do not require crosswalks.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether buses stop if riders are not\nwaiting at stops, to which the Program Specialist II responded in\nthe negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how often the bus actually needs to\nstop west of Grand Street.\nThe Program Specialist II responded ridership data is available,\nnot the number of times buses stop; provided data.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether it is fair to say that the\nbuses do not stop 80% of the time, to which the Program Specialist\nII responded that he could not provide the percentage, but\ncertainly the bus does not stop a significant number of times.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the stop is not mandatory; the bus\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 5, "text": "moves through inquired whether the location of the 50 - line bus\nstop on Otis Drive is at the intersection of Willow Street.\nThe Program Specialist II responded the stop is east of Willow\nStreet.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated if the 63-line stops at Willow Street,\nthere would be two bus stops servicing different needs within a\nclose area; requested ridership data for the 50-line at said stop.\nThe Program Specialist II responded that he did not have said\ninformation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the characteristics would be\nsimilar since both are servicing the hospital and shopping area, to\nwhich the Program Specialist II responded similar land uses are\nserved, however the destinations differ.\nMayor Johnson requested the Police Department to comment on current\nsafety issues.\nTraffic Officer Rodrigue stated the safety concerns have been met\ndue to Public Works installing in-ground lights, bollards and new\nsigns and markings at the crosswalk; the crossing guards have been\ninstructed to keep children from crossing until after the bus stops\nand passes.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired the distance between the bus stop\nand crosswalk, to which Officer Rodrigue responded approximately\n120 feet.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the cars would have to look\naround the bus to see people at the crosswalk and whether the\ncrosswalk would be before the bus stop in the other direction.\nOfficer Rodrigue responded the bus stops would be before the\ncrosswalks in both directions.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the issues that prompted the Police\nDepartment to send a letter to AC Transit no longer exist and\nwhether the Police Department is satisfied with returning the bus\nstop to the prior location.\nOfficer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether there is a history of accidents\nwith children involved under the prior configuration.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 6, "text": "Officer Rodrigue responded only two accidents have occurred in the\ncorridor from January 2005 to present.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether the accidents involved buses, to\nwhich Officer Rodrigue responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore requested Officer Rodrigue to detail the new\nCrossing Guard training.\nOfficer Rodrigue responded the Crossing Guards have been instructed\nto review bus status prior to stepping into the crosswalk.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Crossing Guards have\nbeen instructed to hold the children back when they see the bus\ncoming, to which Officer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have\nbeen monitoring the area since improvements have been made as part\nof routine traffic patrol.\nOfficer Rodrigue responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have\nobserved that the mitigations are effective, to which Officer\nRodrigue responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Police Officers have\nobserved the Crossing Guards stopping the bus at the crosswalk as\nit travels past.\nOfficer Rodrigue responded that he has not observed buses stopping\nfor the crosswalk; however, the Crossing Guards stop the buses\npassing through just like other vehicles.\nMayor Johnson opened the Public Hearing.\nOpponents (Opposed to bus stops) : Geoffrey Kline, Appellant; Mina\nKatoozian, Alameda; Maggy Menendez, Alameda; Pat Owens, Alameda;\nGeorge S. Wales, Alameda; Patty Rose, Alameda; Peter Muzio,\nAlameda; Liz Cleves (submitted photos and paperwork), Alameda;\nDiane Voss, Alameda: Kevin Dong, Alameda; Barbara Nemer, Alameda;\nDan Pereira, Alameda; Jack Boeger, Alameda; Michael John Torrey,\nAlameda; David Howard, Alameda Bill Beltz, Alameda; Davina Vick,\nAlameda; Cheri Galan, Alameda; and Claudia Davison, Alameda.\nProponents (In favor of bus stops) : Laura Thomas, Alameda; Susan\nDecker, Alameda Transit Advocates; and Jon Spangler, Alameda\nTransit Advocates.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 7, "text": "There being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the Hearing.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's request, Cesar Pujol, AC Traffic\nEngineer, provided a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether Willow Street is wide enough\nfor two buses to turn at the same time.\nMr. Pujol responded the bus stop would need to be on Otis Drive\nbecause a left turn could not be made; stated it is always easier\nfor a bus to stop before making a right turn rather than turn and\nstop afterwards.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated Shoreline Drive is used for the Express\nW going to San Francisco inquired whether Shoreline Drive ever had\nother bus service and might have a higher ridership.\nSean Diest Lorgion, AC Transit Transportation Planner, responded\nShoreline Drive had bus service at one time; stated buses were\nrerouted during the 2003 service cuts; the bus schedule has\napproximately 50 minutes of running time; higher costs are incurred\nwith higher running time.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether ridership or running time is\nmore important; stated Shoreline Drive is adjacent to a higher\ndensity area.\nMr. Lorgion responded another bus would be needed if more time was\nadded to a route; stated a different part of the route could be\ncut.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired why the bus would not stop after\nthe crosswalk on Sandcreek Way.\nThe Program Specialist II responded sufficient space is not\navailable in the westbound direction; stated the eastbound\ndirection has a loading zone.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what would be the distance between\nthe crosswalk and bus stop on the opposite side of the street from\nLum School.\nThe Program Specialist II responded he did not have the\nmeasurement; stated the distance would be less than the other side.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Lum School Principal\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 8, "text": "provided any input.\nThe Public Works Director responded the school did not want to\nstate a preference.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether crosswalk changes had been made when\nthe Transportation Commission addressed the matter.\nThe Public Works Director responded some improvement were made ;\nstated the triangular striping was not done; the Police Department\nviewed the area differently because of the eastbound changes for\ndrop offs and pick ups at Lum School.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the drop off and pick up changes\nwere made after the matter was presented to the Transportation\nCommission.\nThe Program Specialist II responded the changes were implemented in\nAugust; stated the matter was brought to the Transportation\nCommission in May and again in September or October; the Police\nDepartment reassessed the matter and indicated that the changes\nmade a sufficient difference.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired how a bus driver would determine whether a\nperson was waiting for a bus rather than waiting to cross or pick\nup a child.\nMr. Pujol responded there would be an off set between the bus stop\npole and the crosswalk.\nVice Mayor Tam inquired whether buses stopped frequently at\nSandcreek Way before, to which Mr. Pujol responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he walks in the area twice a week;\nefforts have been made to improve safety; crossing the street is\nstill a chore; he prefers to cross at Grand Street or Willow\nStreet; having a marked crosswalk at Pond Isle would provide a\nfalse sense of security; ridership is encouraged; inquired why the\nExpress W goes down Shoreline Drive if Otis Drive has high\nridership; stated the 63-line goes down Otis Drive because of run\ntime; something is missing in the equation; all options should be\nreviewed; he cannot support adding additional stops.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he cannot see placing the bus\nstop at Sandcreek Way and Otis Drive; he is not worried about bus\ndrivers; car drivers have been the cause of accidents involving\nchildren; he would be in favor of the Pond Isle bus stop except for\nthe question of whether Pond Isle is the right place for a bus\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 9, "text": "stop; he recommends that the matter go back to the Transportation\nCommission to review Otis Drive alternatives other than Pond Isle\nor Sandcreek Way and rerouting the 63-line back down to Shoreline\nDrive as the preferred alternative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she is not in favor of putting a\nbus stop at Pond Isle because it might not be the correct way to\nroute the bus; a major distraction would occur by putting a bus\nstop with a crosswalk at Pond Isle because people look ahead to the\nLum School crosswalk; the City has a Transit Plan that encourages\nridership; the City demanded that a Transit Plan be in place for\nthe Alameda Point and Alameda Landing development on day one the\nnumber one complaint is traffic and congestion which can be reduced\nby having more conveniently located public transit; the City has to\nbe proactive in working on the Transit Plan; she is not ready to\nrecommend putting bus stops on Otis Drive tonight; the City needs\nto work with AC Transit; the process is not driven by citizen\nrequests.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore;\nstated traffic congestion is the number one complaint; buses are\nthe best way to eliminate the continual use of single occupancy\nvehicles; tonight is not the night to decide on bus stop locations\ntoo many questions are unanswered; he does not want a bus stop at\nSandcreek Way and Otis Drive; he recommends that the matter go back\nto the Transportation Commission and staff work with AC Transit on\nfinding an alternative stop on Otis Drive or a reroute that would\nhelp pick up ridership as well as mitigate the issue that has\noccurred between Sandcreek Way and Willow Street and Whitehall\nPlace.\nMayor Johnson stated cars are a hazard around schools, not bus\ndrivers; traffic is a big concern; traffic problems are not solved\nby taking out bus stops; concurred that options need to be\nreviewed; people will complain regardless of where bus stops are\nplaced; the matter should go back to the Transportation Commission.\nVice Mayor Tam stated transit options will be necessary as the\nAlameda Towne Centre is developed; she advocates having a bus stop\nas close to Alameda Hospital as possible; sufficient information is\nnot available to distinguish whether the bus stop should be at\nSandcreek Way or Pond Isle; she leans toward having the bus stop at\nPond Isle because a safety buffer is needed between the pedestrian\ncrossing; she would like to receive more information regarding the\nfrequency of bus stops and the necessity of routes.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Whitehall Place walkway is no more\nthan three feet wide and is inadequate; pedestrians walk in the\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 10, "text": "roadway to get to the Alameda Towne Centre; requested staff to work\non rectifying the Whitehall Place walkway with the Alameda Towne\nCentre developer ; concurred with Vice Mayor Tam regarding having a\nbus stop close to Alameda Hospital.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved that the matter be sent back to staff\nwith review by the Transportation Commission to look at\nalternatives to the Sandcreek Way bus stop and possible rerouting\nof the 63-line to Shoreline Drive.\nMayor Johnson suggested including other alternatives developed by\nstaff.\nCouncilmember Matarrese amended his motion to include other\nalternatives that may be developed by staff in concert with AC\nTransit.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated increased ridership\nis important; people need to have the opportunity to use the bus\nservice to the utmost.\nouncilmember Gilmore stated information has been requested on the\nnumber of riders and how many times the bus stops.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated said information would part of the\ntechnical discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated direction should be given to complete\nsaid technical discussion.\nCouncilmember Matarrese concurred with Councilmember Gilmore.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice\nvote - 5.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(07-112 - ) Ed Gersich, Alameda, discussed the need for a bus stop at\nthe USS Hornet.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the closest stop to the USS Hornet,\nto which Mr. Gersich responded the Ferry Terminal.\nMayor Johnson stated bus service was a lot closer before.\nMr. Gersich stated the USS Hornet had bus service before the [AC\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 11, "text": "Transit ] 2003 budget cuts.\n(07-113) Bill Smith, Alameda, discussed the environment.\n(07-114) Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated many people are unaware\nthat the Farmers' Market is open again.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(07-115) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether updates would be\nprovided on the Climate Protection Task Force; further inquired\nwhether the Committee would provide recommendations on control or\nelimination of styrofoam containers in the City.\nThe City Manager responded staff would provide an update on the\nwork plan; styrofoam was to be added to the work plan.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that styrofoam containers be\naddressed as a priority; stated other cities have ordinances.\n(07-116) Councilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Arts\nCommission would be involved in Cultural Art Center discussions.\nThe City Manager responded the matter would be addressed at the\nnext Arts Commission Meeting.\n(07-117) Councilmember Matarrese stated communications were\nreceived from Asuchio, El Salvador a translated report will be\nprovided to the City Clerk for distribution to Council.\n(07-118) - Vice Mayor Tam thanked staff for the Off Agenda Report on\nthe library; stated the Library Construction and Renovation Bond,\nSB 156, was introduced in the State Senate recently; the $4 billion\nbond measure is expected to go on the primary ballot in 2008;\ninquired whether Council could take a supportive position on the\nbill.\nThe City Manager responded an update would be provided on where the\nissue stands in the process.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated a joint committee was established eight\nmonths ago between Councils of Alameda and Oakland to discuss build\nout and how impacts on each other; major build out is occurring in\nOakland; inquired whether the committee has met.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded in the negative.\nCouncilmember deHaan requested that the Planning Department provide\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 12, "text": "an update on Oakland's upcoming projects.\n(07 7-119 - ) Councilmember deHaan stated the City adopted a resolution\nin 1996 stating that the City would prepare for an electric vehicle\nmodel City program; a commitment was made and needs to be pursued\nfurther.\nADJOURNMEN'T\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 10:10 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\n12\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2007-03-06", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -MARCH 6, 2007 -5:45 p.m.\nMayor Johnson convened the Special Meeting at 5:55 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(07-099) Workers' Compensation Claim (54956.95) ; Claimant:\nJeremiah Harrison; Agency Claimed Against : City of Alameda.\n(07-100) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation\n(54953.9 ) ; Name of Case: Codino V. City of Alameda.\n(07-101) Conference with Labor Negotiators Agency Negotiators\nCraig Jory and Human Resources Director Employee Organizations :\nAll Bargaining Units.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Meeting was reconvened\nand Mayor Johnson announced that regarding Workers' Compensation\nClaim, Council heard the presentation and recommendation of staff\nand gave direction to staff; regarding Existing Litigation, Council\nheard the presentation and recommendation of staff and gave\ndirection to staff; regarding Labor, Council heard the\npresentations of staff and the Labor Negotiator and gave direction\nto the Labor Negotiator.\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\nMarch 6, 2007", "path": "CityCouncil/2007-03-06.pdf"}