{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - -JANUARY 20, 2009- - -7:30 P.M.\nVice Mayor deHaan convened the Regular Meeting at 7:35 p.m.\nCouncilmember Gilmore led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL - Present :\nCouncilmembers\ndeHaan,\nGilmore,\nMatarrese, and Tam - 4.\nAbsent :\nMayor Johnson - 1. [Note Mayor Johnson\nwas at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in\nWashington, D.C. ]\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY AND ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(09-023) - Vice Mayor deHaan stated the Presidential inauguration\nwas inspirational; today is time for Americans to renew their\ndedication to the country.\n(09-024) Proclamation recognizing Alameda Hospital for its\nextraordinary efforts in volunteering excellent healthcare\nservices to the City's citizens and employees.\nVice Mayor deHaan read and presented the proclamation to Deborah\nE. Stebbins, Alameda Hospital Chief Executive Officer.\nMs. Stebbins thanked Council for the proclamation; introduced\nAlameda Hospital staff and Board Members.\nBoard President Jordon Battani thanked Council for recognizing\nthe efforts made by hospital staff; stated the hospital is in a\nposition to offer an increased level of health care services.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda residents are supportive of the\nhospital; that he looks forward to a long partnership.\n(09-025) Proclamation declaring January 20, 2009 as Encinal Jets\nDay.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he attended Encinal High School ;\nthe school was very proud of going to the Northern California\nChampionship in the late 1950's and early 1960's. both Encinal\nand Alameda High Schools have very successful sport programs\nread and presented the proclamation to Coach Joe Tenorio.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 2, "text": "Mr. Tenorio thanked Council for the proclamation and introduced\nteam members.\n(09-026) Presentation by Alameda County on upcoming retrofit of\nAlameda-Oakland - bridges.\nAlameda County Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker introduced Bill\nLepere, Alameda County Public Works Deputy Director, who gave a\nPower Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated residents have complained about\nthe banging noise when large vehicles cross a leaf on the High\nStreet Bridge; inquired whether the proposed work would dampen\nsome of the noise.\nMr. Lepere responded that he assumes some improvement would be\nmade.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested the County to provide specific\ninformation on the matter.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the proposed work would\nbe structural and not add capacity, to which Mr. Lepere\nresponded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired when the Fruitvale Bridge work is\nanticipated to begin.\nMr. Lepere responded the Fruitvale Bridge is not included in the\nproposed project ; stated the work is still under design.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired about the status of reopening the\nGlascock rail line on the Oakland side, to which Mr. Lepere\nresponded that he does not know.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what would be the retrofitting level\nfor the bridges, Mr. Lepere responded the retrofitting would be\nat a level considered for a major event.\nRobb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA) thanked the\nCounty for working with the City and PSBA; stated the Park\nStreet Bridge was fully closed for a number of months twelve\nyears ago; PSBA is in agreement with the bridge closure\nschedule.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 3, "text": "Daniel Woldesenbt, Alameda County Public Works Director, stated\nthe Fruitvale Bridge is under design the Fruitvale Bridge has\nno overhang; the County wants to ensure that one bridge would\nwithstand a larger earthquake; the County is doing a lifeline\ndesign instead of a no-collapse design; the lifeline design is a\n$45 million project; the County does not have funding and needs\nto delay the project the Fruitvale Bridge no-collapse design\nwould be incorporated into the lifeline design; the County has\ndone some work on the [High Street] noise dampening issue; the\nnoise will be continually monitored.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he observed the noise when a\nbus crossed the High Street Bridge.\nMr. Woldesenbt stated adjustments have been made. that he has\nnot heard any complaints for a year.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nVice Mayor deHaan announced that the Minutes [paragraph no. 09-\n027] and the Agreement with E.S.O. Solutions [paragraph no. 09-\n029 ] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the\nConsent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ] [Items so\nenacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the\nparagraph number. ]\n(09- - 027) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting held on\nDecember 16, 2008; the Special Joint City Council and Community\nImprovement Commission Meeting and the Regular City Council\nMeeting held on January 6, 2009; and the Special City Council\nMeeting held on January 13, 2009.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the minutes with\ncorrection to Page 5, changing the word \"disciple\" to\ndiscipline.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\n(*09-028 - ) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,574,163.99.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 4, "text": "(09-029) Recommendation to authorize the City Manager to\nexecute an Agreement with E.S.O. Solutions for Ambulance Billing\nServices and terminate the Toomay Technologies, Inc. Contract.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the current Contract\nproblems are with fee collection or just processing.\nThe EMS Director responded discrepancies were noted in reporting\npatient care and billing errors; stated the timeframe for\ncorrection is not acceptable.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that information be provided\non uncollected billing in order to have some measurement going\nforward.\nThe EMS Director stated the proposed Contract includes remedies\nregarding the issues; timeframe requirements would be provided\nfor correcting discrepancies.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of authorizing the City\nManager to terminate an existing agreement with Toomay\nTechnologies, Inc. and execute an agreement with E.S.O.\nSolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson - 1. ]\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-030) The City Manager stated that the Public Utilities Board\n(PUB) is conducing a survey regarding changing the name of Alameda\nPower & Telecom; options include Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) ;\nAlameda Power (AP) ; Alameda Green Power (AGP) ; Alameda Municipal\nElectric (AME) ; and Alameda Community Power (ACP) ; Alameda Green\nElectric was rejected because the acronym would be AGE; corporate\nidentification would meet three criteria: 1) cost effective; 2)\nquickly implemented; and 3) endurance; no logo change is proposed;\nthe PUB will make the final determination; residents can express\ntheir preference on the website.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the legal name is still the Bureau of\nElectricity; the name change would be for \"doing business as; \"\ncustomers will need to have their account number in order to\nparticipate in the poll.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 5, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-031) - Resolution NO. 14298, \"Appointing Ellen Hui as a Member\nof the Youth Advisory Commission. \" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion; the motion carried by\nconsensus - 4. [Absent : Mayor Johnson 1. ]\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath and presented a Certificate\nof Appointment to Ms. Hui.\n(09-032) - Public Hearing on Housing and Community Development\nneeds for Community Block Grant Fiscal Year 2009-2010 Annual\nPlan.\nThe Community Development Program Manager gave a Power Point\npresentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan opened the public portion of the hearing.\nSpeakers : Cyndy Wasko, Social Services Human Relations Board\n( SSHRB ) President; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative\n/\nSSHRB; Karuna Jaggar, Women's Initiative for Self Employment.\nThere being no further speakers, Vice Mayor deHaan closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a 30% increase in need is\nanticipated and whether the same allocation is expected.\nMs. Wasko responded July through November figures show a 30%\nincrease in need for food; stated the School District advises\nthat there is an 11% increase in homeless families needing\nclothing and transportation vouchers.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that needs are concerning.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated that the City's\npublic services allocation would be capped at 15% plus prior\nyear's program income; an additional $9,000 was given to the\nFood Bank this year.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 6, "text": "The City Manager stated the City cannot spend more than the 15%\ncap [ on services 1.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether staff can request an\nadditional funding allocation or projects the amount to be the\nsame as prior years.\nThe Community Development Program Manager responded the City\ndoes not have the ability to request more funding stated staff\nis requesting to change the [service] cap to 25% because of the\neconomy\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the current plan could\nbe adjusted based upon what is going to happen within the next\ntwo or three months.\nThe Community Development Program Manager responded the plan\nwould be published in April; stated funding starts in July; the\nCity has the ability to do an amendment if there is a change.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated State employees are being laid\noff and IOU's are anticipated which would increase the need.\nCouncilmember Gilmore thanked the SSHRB and staff for the hard\nwork; stated that she appreciates the creativity and initiative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated last year there was more need than\ncould be filled.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated the issue is\nalways the case.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City was able to obligate\nadditional funds.\nThe Community Development Program Manager stated additional\nfunds were from loan repayments.\n(09-033) Public Hearing to consider certifying a Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report (EIR) , approving the proposed\nTransportation Element General Plan Amendment, and rescinding\nthe 1991 Transportation Element and\n(09-033 A) Resolution No. 14299, \"Making Findings regarding\nEnvironmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Making Findings\nConcerning Alternatives, Adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 7, "text": "Reporting Program and Adopting a Statement of Overriding\nConsiderations in Accordance with the California Environmental\nQuality Act for the Proposed Transportation Element General Plan\nAmendment (State Clearinghouse #2007072075) Adopted; and\n(09-033 B) Resolution No. 14300, \"Certifying the Final\nEnvironmental Impact Report for the Transportation Element\nGeneral Plan Amendment (State Clearinghouse #2007072075) \"\nAdopted; and\n(09-033 C) Resolution No. 14301, \"Approving a General Plan\nAmendment to Adopt a New Transportation Element of the General\nPlan and Rescind the 1991 Transportation Element. Adopted; and\n(09-033 D) Resolution No. 14302, \"Approving the City of Alameda\nPedestrian Plan. Adopted.\nThe Public Works Director, Supervising Engineer, and Planning\nand Building Director gave a Power Point presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired what was the Transportation\nCommission and Planning Board vote.\nThe Public Works Director responded that all four Transportation\nCommission members voted in favor of requiring a General Plan\nAmendment (GPA) ; stated the six Planning Board members voted\nfive to one [which is the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired which recommendation would be\nmore streamlined.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded the Planning Board\nrecommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the first move would be\nto remove on-street parking during peak hours under the Planning\nBoard's recommendation, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether parking would be removed\npermanently if a street were widened.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded parking would be\nremoved only on a regional or island arterial identified in the\nTransportation Element Street Classification System.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 8, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore inquired whether a right turn lane could\nhappen on any street, to which the Planning and Building\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a GPA generally accompanies a\nDisposition and Development Agreement (DDA) .\nThe Planning and Building Director responded just for a change\nin the land use designation, not a policy; stated a GPA is\nneeded from time to time for a specific project.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a GPA could be made in a\nstreamlined fashion, to which the Planning and Building Director\nresponded possibly.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how long the process would take, to\nwhich the Planning and Building Director responded approximately\nsix months depending on whether an environment review would be\nneeded.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired how the proposal would affect\nexisting projects.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded entitled projects\nwould not be affected.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated parking has always been a hot\ntopic; inquired how congestion and on-street parking removal\nwould be balanced.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded policies would need\nto be reviewed; stated the Environmental Impact Review (EIR)\nfocuses on transportation, not parking.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the Planning Board would\nbalance removing parking versus street widening ; further\ninquired whether the matter would need to go to the\nTransportation Commission also.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded transportation\nissues are referred to the Transportation Commission; stated the\nPlanning Board would analyze everything else.\nThe Transportation Coordinator continued the Power Point\npresentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 9, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan opened the public portion of the hearing.\nSpeakers Michael J. Torrey, Alameda; John Knox-White,\nTransportation Commission Chair; Michael Krueger, Transportation\nCommission Vice Chair (submitted handout) i Audrey Lord-Hausman,\nPedestrian Friendly Alameda; David Kirwin, Alameda; Jon\nSpangler, Alameda; Lucy Gigli, Bike Alameda.\nThere being no further speakers, Vice Mayor deHaan closed the\npublic portion of the hearing.\nVice Mayor deHaan noted that the Pedestrian Plan would be\naddressed first.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the report is comprehensive.\ninquired whether there are ways to increase the reasons why\npeople walk.\nThe Transportation Coordinator responded the City's streets are\nconsidered to be pedestrian friendly; stated one goal is to\nincrease the number of trips, especially for utilitarian\npurposes educational programs target people who want to change\nfrom the automobile to another mode of transportation\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he would like to consider\nspending the $1 million for the estuary crossing project) in\nways that would serve more people; the City might benefit more\nby taking 300 children out of a car between Amelia Earhart\nElementary School and Lincoln Middle School.\nThe Transportation Coordinator stated school trips are within\nthe Island; the estuary crossing project would relieve\ncongestion for trips going on and off the Island.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated Council should consider whether\n$1 million should be spent on something that will never happen\nand would benefit a few people; reducing Bay Farm Island car\ntraffic would have a greater impact that he would like the\nmatter to be considered and studied.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated approximately $250,000 has already been\nspent on the estuary crossing; that he is not sure what point\nthe estuary crossing should not be in the equation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Tam stated that Americans with Disabilities (ADA)\nneeds were assessed last year inquired whether there is some\nway to overlap and meet the multiple objectives so that the City\ngets the most for the dollar.\nThe Transportation Coordinator stated the ADA Transition Plan is\na required document the proposed Pedestrian Plan is not a\nrequired document but goes above and beyond what is required by\nthe ADA; the proposed Pedestrian Plan does not include ADA\nprojects, except audible pedestrian signals, and is not required\nto be funded.\nThe City Manager stated Council is indicating the proposed plan\nis a good tool and staff should look at high priority projects\nand the use of the $1 million.\nCouncilmember Tam moved [adoption of the resolutions ] certifying\nthe EIR with the Transportation Element as recommended by the\nTransportation Commission with respect to Policy 4.4.2.f and\napproving the Pedestrian Plan and revision of the 1991\nTransportation Element.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Matarrese stated a GPA can have\nmitigations attached and provides a very direct policy statement\nabout what has to be done; that he would like to have three\nscenarios included in the Transportation Element : 1) the project\ncan be denied; 2) the project can be approved with a statement\nof overriding concern; or 3) the project can go forward with an\nexemption or amendment to the General Plan; Alameda does not\nhave streets that can be widened without taking out houses or\nbusinesses, with the exception of Wilver \"Willie\" Stargell\nAvenue. parking is at a premium in Alameda; worthy projects can\ngo through a GPA; the process sends a clear message to\ndevelopers.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she supports the motion; that\nshe is very leery about moving forward with something that would\nremove parking when the balancing act between parking and\nwidening a lane is unclear; that she has sympathy for a right-\nturn lane during commute hours; widening streets may result in\nmore congestion; maintaining control throughout the community is\nimportant.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 11, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan questioned whether Council wants to limit the\nflexibility of the Planning Department for a small opportunity;\nstated that he does not want to create four lane roads;\ninfrastructure is built out except for the West End.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that flexibility would not be\nlimited; an exemption can be made if a project warrants a\ndrastic measure; a worthy, high priority project would need an\nEIR that has defined timeframes; the problem is on the other\nside of the Tube.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated traffic is the number one\ncomplaint; adding capacity would add traffic; adding capacity\nshould only be done for a good project; inquired whether a\nworthy project needing an EIR could be simultaneously processed\nwith a GPA; further inquired whether the process would be slowed\ndown.\nThe Planning and Building Director responded a draft EIR would\nbe needed in some cases to determine whether lane widening is\nneeded.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated congestion already exists when trying\nto make a left-hand turn onto Park Street at Otis Drive; traffic\ncannot move down Otis Drive; the area has parking spaces that\nare not used; traffic backs up two or three blocks on Otis\nDrive; the choke point has not encouraged people to walk, ride\nbikes, or take a bus to the shopping center.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Council and community have\nbeen adamant about having mitigation measures to accommodate\ntraffic from new development; softening the policy does not give\na clear picture of what Council wants to do.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the process is awkward or\nsomething that staff could live with.\nThe Public Works Director responded the concern is having some\nflexibility to look at potential operational issues; stated a\nGPA could be done; there would be a time issue and cost to the\ndeveloper; the Planning Board recommendation allows the\nTransportation Commission, Planning Board and City Council to\nhear pros and cons for providing a right-turn lane; the public\nwould be involved in the discussion; the developer would know\nhow to develop the project; developers may be discouraged from\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 12, "text": "asking for a GPA because of costs; knowing what the public\nprefers is important.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the\nfollowing voice vote: Ayes : Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam - 3. Abstentions: Vice Mayor deHaan - 1. [Absent : Mayor\nJohnson - 1. ]\nThe City Manager inquired whether Vice Mayor deHaan abstained\nfrom voting on everything.\nVice Mayor deHaan clarified that he abstained from Resolution\nNo. 14296 and in favor of the remaining resolutions.\n(09-034) Discussion of Alameda Peace Network's proposal\nregarding Iraq War.\nThe City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated President Obama intends to withdraw\ntroops within sixteen months.\nSpeakers : Carl Halpern, Alameda Peace Network; Pat Flores,\nAlameda Peace Network; (submitted petition) ; Peter Frank,\nAlameda Peace Network.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated that she appreciates the Alameda\nPeace Network being accommodating and flexible in amending its\nprevious request; previous discussions were about withdrawing\ntroops from Iraq; she does not recall discussing troops in\nAfghanistan and avoiding new military operations elsewhere; she\nwould be hesitant to support said language; she would never\nadvocate going to war but would not propose telling the\nPresident what to do in defense of the country that she is not\nsure whether the financial impact to the City can be quantified;\nthe State budget crises has more of an affect on the City the\nplanned budget discussions will provide a better understanding\nof how the City gets and spends money.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the new proposal is a good follow\nup to the 2006 resolution; many things discussed in the 2006\nresolution came to fruition; Council will be receiving multiple\nbudget briefings, including a Budget Workshop on February 7;\ndiscussions will highlight impacts that are a result of federal\naction; the price that has been assigned to the conveyance of\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 13, "text": "the former Naval Air Station is a 2006 price; the world has\nchanged; he does not want to pay the 2006 price; citizens need\nto keep an eye on the Afghanistan situation to ensure that the\nmatter does not turn into something that the Russian's\nexperienced back in the 1980's the issue needs to be tied\ndirectly to financial hearings.\nCouncilmember Tam stated teasing out specific scenarios on the\namount of federal funding the City would have received if not\nfor the war would be difficult; the 2007 Resolution was very\nexpansive; the issue is a moving target; Council needs to be\nvery clear on how the City would be impacted in budget\ndeliberations.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated a sixteen month troop withdrawal was\none of the President's strong platforms; Afghanistan is a\nconcerning factor; the Russians were extremely unsuccessful and\nbrought their economy to its knees; he has mixed emotions the\nIraq situation is heading in the right direction;\nthe\nAfghanistan situation is a wait-and-see approach.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the August 2007 resolution was sent\nto Governor Schwarzenegger; suggested that the resolution be\nsent to President Obama.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested pointing out that the overall\nIraq expenditure is a drain and continues to be.\nMr. Halpern stated the 2006 Resolution is vague on withdrawal\ntimetables; there is no mention of the 180,000 contractors in\nIraq; information on budgetary priorities can be provided; there\nis a website that translates the costs of the war to cities.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a cover letter would be\nsubmitted with the resolution.\nCouncilmember Matarrese responded a cover letter was attached to\nthe previous resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is comfortable with\nreaffirming the City's commitment to peace; in 2007, Council\ncalled upon the President, Congress, Governor Schwarzenegger,\nand State legislatures to take immediate steps to establish a\ndiplomatic approach ending the violence in Iraq; now there are\nnew players; suggested the resolution be sent to new bodies.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 14, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese requested staff to address the timeframe\nand contractor clarification when the matter comes back.\nThe City Manager stated that the matter would not be brought\nback; the resolution would be sent to new Government officials.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the resolution would be reissued\nwith a cover letter that echoes President Obama's promise of a\nsixteen month troop withdrawal, including all interested\nAmericans.\nCouncilmember Matarrese suggested including \"a meaningful\nwithdrawal.\nThe City Manager stated a cover letter could be attached that\nwould incorporate the President's statements and be consistent\nwith the Council adopted resolution.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-035) - Jon Spangler, Alameda, stated that he looks forward to\nseeing more progress under the new Transportation Master Plan.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(09-036) Discussion of bike related issues.\nCouncilmember Matarrese requested that Council consider giving\ndirection on: 1) marketing and promotion of bicycle locker usage\nat City Hall and Civic Center garage, 2) bicycle crossing using\nthe Fruitvale Bridge and associated bike lanes, and 3) details\non implementation of bike parking on Central Avenue between Oak\nand Park Streets; stated last Saturday night, each sign post on\nthe theatre side of Central Avenue had a bike attached; he is\nworried about the implementation of Item 1 and 3.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the intent of a Council Referral is to\nplace the item on a future agenda; staff would come back and\nadvise the costs; Councilmember Matarrese's referral would be\nunder the normal scope of the Public Works Department; that he\ndoes not know what the cost would be.\nThe City Manager stated additional funds have not been budgeted\nfor bicycle locker marketing and promotion; Items 1 and 3 came\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 15, "text": "to Council for discussion; staff was directed to work with the\nvendor and Bike Alameda.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the issues are important and should be\ndiscussed.\nThe City Manager stated an Off Agenda update could be provided\non the implementation of bike parking on Central Avenue between\nOak and Park Streets; staff is moving forward on the matter\nfollowing Council direction; the consideration of bike crossing\nusing the Fruitvale Bridge and associated bike lanes is not on a\ncurrent work plan; the City works with the County on the matter.\nThe Public Works Director stated the County was contacted by\nBike Alameda; the County discussed the possibility of restriping\nthe Fruitvale Bridge to allow a bike lane with City staff; a\nthree foot bike lane would be feasible; the minimum is four\nfeet; five feet is encouraged.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated that he does not want to get into\ndiscussion tonight.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated Council had a long, involved\ndiscussion on Items 1 and 3; suggested that staff provide an Off\nAgenda report; placing the matter on an agenda is premature.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired about Item 2.\nCouncilmember Gilmore responded staff could pursue the matter\nand provide an Off Agenda report when ready; inquired whether\nthe County started any work on the Fruitvale Bridge.\nThe Public Works Director responded in the affirmative; stated\nlifeline project funding is being pursued, which might include\nbike accommodations.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated there is consensus to preliminary\nreview all three items and produce an Off Agenda Report that\nprovides a path forward on Items 1 and 3 and options for Item 2,\nincluding removing a lane of car traffic.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether staff's workload would be\nimpacted, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n15\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-01-20", "page": 16, "text": "investment funding needs to be preserved; Senator Desaulnier is\na proponent of preserving transportation dollars 18,000 to\n30,000 jobs are created for every billion dollars\nin\ntransportation money; the Caldecott Tunnel will be on the\nchopping block for funding Dan Hatfield, Bay Area Newspaper\nGroup Editorial Page Editor, stated that he has four staff\ndealing with eleven different regions; information submitted\nneeds to be clear and precise; incorrect information needs to be\ncorrected immediately; stated that Mr. Hatfield provided his\nemail address.\n(09-038 - ) Councilmember Matarrese stated more boats are stored on\nthe streets; the City has no obligation to provide free boat\nstorage on streets.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the problem is becoming more common;\nurged the Police Department to stay on top of the matter.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Vice Mayor deHaan adjourned the\nRegular Meeting at 11:05 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the\nBrown Act.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n16\nJanuary 20, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-01-20.pdf"}