{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY - -SEPTEMBER 1, 2009- -7:30 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the regular meeting at 7:48 p.m.\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(09-326) Proclamation Declaring September 19, 2009, as Coastal\nCleanup Day\nMayor Johnson read and presented the proclamation to Sharol Nelson-\nEmbry, Supervising Naturalist with the East Bay Regional Park\nDistrict Crab Cove Visitor Center.\nMs. Nelson-Embry thanked Council for the proclamation.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Johnson announced that the Quarterly Treasury Report\n[paragraph no. 09-329] and the Public Hearing [paragraph no. 09-\n333] were removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an\nasterisk preceding the paragraph number. ]\n(*09-327) Minutes of the Special City Council and Joint City\nCouncil, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, and Community\nImprovement Commission Meetings held on August 3, 2009.\nApproved.\n(*09-328) Ratified bills in the amount of $10,529,125.06.\n(09-329) Recommendation to Accept the Quarterly Treasury Report for\nPeriod Ending June 30, 2009.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how the City made $4.8 million in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 2, "text": "interest when $1.8 million was budgeted.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded interest was not included in\nthe budget for most of the funds last year.\nMayor Johnson inquired how interest has been allocated.\nThe Interim Finance Director responded interest has been allocated\nbased on account balances; stated last year's budget should have\nincluded interest income as part of the revenue source.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is happy that the report notes\nidle cash has been invested for various assessment districts and\nbond funds.\nCouncilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*09-330) Resolution No. 14375, \"Approving the Amended and Restated\nThird Phase Agreement With NCPA and Exercising Alameda's Withdrawal\nRights to Terminate Alameda's Participation in the Western Geopower\nIncorporated Geothermal Energy Project. Adopted.\n(*09-331) Resolution 0.14376, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Submit an Application to the State Water Resources\nControl Board for Financial Assistance, Certify that the City Will\nComply with All Applicable State and Federal Statutory and\nRegulatory Requirements, and to Negotiate and Execute All Necessary\nDocuments to Implement the Installation of Mechanical Trash Racks\nat Storm Water Pump Stations. Adopted.\n(*09-332) Resolution No. 14377, \"Authorizing the Interim City\nManager to Submit an Application to the State Water Resources\nControl Board for Financial Assistance, Certify that the City Will\nComply with All Applicable State and Federal Statutory and\nRegulatory Requirements, and to Negotiate and Execute All Necessary\nDocuments to Implement the Rehabilitation of the Structural\nStability of Approximately 3,000 Linear Feet of the Southshore\nLagoon Seawalls Adjacent to City Streets. Adopted.\n(09-333) Public Hearing to Consider Introduction of an Ordinance\n\"Amending Ordinance No. 1277, N.S. to Rezone Approximately .23\nAcres Located at 3236 and 3238 Briggs Avenue, APN 069 007604601,\nFrom R-4, Neighborhood Residential Zoning District, to R-4-PD,\nNeighborhood Residential Planned Development District Zoning\nDesignation. Introduced; and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 3, "text": "(09-333A) Resolution No. 14378, \"Approving Applications for\nRezoning (R07-002) Planned Development (PD07-0002), and Parcel Map\n(PM07-0004) at 3236 Briggs Avenue\" for Parcel Map No. 9326 to Allow\nthe Subdivision of the Property into Two Separate Parcels. \"\nAdopted.\nThe Planning Services Manager gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired why so much time lapsed between the Planning\nBoard's review and now.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Applicant was working\non the maps and some site improvements.\nMayor Johnson stated two years is too long between the Planning\nBoard's recommendation and the matter coming to the City Council.\nMayor Johnson opened the public portion of the Hearing.\nOpponents (Not in favor of staff recommendation) : Jacqueline Riley,\nAlameda; and Anne Taylor, Alameda.\nProponent ( In favor of staff recommendation) : John Medulan,\nProperty Owner.\nThere being no further speakers, Mayor Johnson closed the public\nportion of the hearing.\nFollowing Ms. Riley's comments, Mayor Johnson inquired whether Ms.\nRiley is opposed to the project or hours of construction.\nMs. Riley responded that she is opposed to the project; stated\nconstruction hours should be limited if the project is approved.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Ms. Riley received a notice of\ntonight's public hearing, to which Ms. Riley responded in the\nnegative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what existed on the lot [in the\nneighborhood that now contains a large home] when Ms. Riley moved\nin two years ago, to which Ms. Riley responded nothing.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the current houses [ under\nconsideration] are mansions, to which the property owner responded\nin the negative.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the properties [ on Briggs Avenue ]\nare\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 4, "text": "unique, have very deep lots, and usually have two houses with one\nin the back.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated there seems to be some property\nconfusion; the pictures do not show any construction or a large\nhouse; the neighbors have an issue with a different property.\nMayor Johnson stated the neighbors are concerned with what type of\ndevelopment could be done after the proposed subdivision; the lag\nin time should not have occurred.\nThe Planning Services Manager stated that he concurs with Mayor\nJohnson; the property owner was trying to meet Planning Board\nrequirements.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether a full public process would\nbe required to do an ad on or exterior renovations, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether building an additional\nstructure in the backyard would be more difficult if the property\nis subdivided.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded without subdividing, there\nwould be one less property line to deal with and one less parking\nspace required.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there could be greater density in\nthe back part of the lots [if not subdivided], to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired whether the same number of units\nwould be allowed with or without the subdivision, to which the\nPlanning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Johnson inquired why the project was not sent back to the\nPlanning Board, to which the Planning Services Manager responded\nthe application seemed to be straight forward.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Planning Board needs to take\nanother look at the project.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the underlying issue seems to be\nstraight forward; there is a potential for four units regardless of\napproving or disapproving the subdivision; the mass of the units\nthat could be built on the site is much greater without a\nsubdivision; the owner fulfilled the Planning Board's requirements.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Gilmore moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Gilmore suggested that the speakers contact staff\nabout the other referenced property.\nMayor Johnson stated the neighbors should have concrete, real\nanswers regarding what can be built; sending the project back to\nthe Planning Board would be best.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated placing the public hearing on the\nConsent Calendar is inconsistent with past practices.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated a public hearing occurred two years\nago; the Planning Board gave the property owner a list of\nconditions that needed to be fulfilled in order for the project to\ncome to Council; the property owner would be penalized [if the\nmatter went back to the Planning Board] for doing what was\nexpected; that she has sympathy for the property owner because time\nis money.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the ordinance is being\nintroduced tonight and final passage would be agendized for the\nnext meeting.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the ordinance would come\nback to Council for final passage at the next meeting; however, the\nsubdivision issue would not.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether there was anything onerous about\nwhat the Planning Board required in 2007.\nThe Planning Services Manager responded the Planning Board wanted\nutilities separated and a portion of the garage removed so that the\ngarage would not cross the property line.\nVice Mayor deHaan inquired whether utilities have been split, to\nwhich the Planning Services Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the neighbors' concerns would be addressed\nwith the Planning Board's seven findings with respect to the\nsubdivision.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by the following\nvoice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore and Tam - 3. Noes\nCouncilmember Matarrese and Mayor Johnson - 2.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 6, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-334) Resolution No. 14379, \"Reappointing Hannah Bowman as a\nMember of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted;\n(09-334 A) Resolution No. 14380, \"Reappointing Jordan Flores as a\nMember of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted;\n(09-334 B) Resolution No. 14381, \"Reappointing Anjuli Sastry as a\nMember of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted;\n(09-334 C) Resolution No. 14382, \"Reappointing Bhaani Singh as a\nMember of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted;\n(09-334 D) Resolution No. 14383, \"Reappointing Angela Sterling Vick\nas a Member of the Youth Advisory Commission. Adopted; and\n(09-334 E) Resolution Appointing Valerian Lee as a Member of the\nYouth Advisory Commission. Not adopted.\nThe City Clerk announced that the resolution appointing Valerian\nLee was withdrawn from the agenda.\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved adoption of the remaining\nresolutions.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented\ncertificates of appointment to Ms. Bowman, Ms. Sastry and Ms.\nSingh.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-335) Fire Department Response Standards\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief introduction.\nThe Fire Chief gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Ruby Bridges Elementary School has\nexperienced many false alarms in the past; inquired how the Fire\nDepartment responds to school alarms.\nThe Fire Chief responded school alarms are treated the same as\ncommercial buildings stated one engine and one truck would be\ndispatched; a full response is sent for hospital fire alarms.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the National Fire Protection\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 7, "text": "Association (NFPA) minimum personnel requirements are the same as\nthe Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) .\nThe Fire Chief responded in the negative; stated the OSHA\nrequirement is the two in and two out rule.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether NFPA standards are guidelines, not\nrequirements, to which the Fire Chief responded in the affirmative.\nThe Fire Chief continued the presentation.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the Fire Department meets the one-\nminute turnout standard, to which the Fire Chief responded in the\nnegative.\nMayor Johnson inquired what is the Fire Department's turnout time,\nto which the Fire chief responded two to two and a half minutes.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Emergency Medical Services (EMS)\nturnout time is faster.\nThe Fire Chief responded EMS turnout time is slightly longer\nstated staff is reviewing ways to improve the time.\nThe Fire Chief continued the presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated a ten-minute ambulance response time would\nresult in a patient being declared brain dead.\nThe Fire Chief stated the County is revising the standard; the\nmatter is a cost issue.\nIn response to Mayor Johnson's inquiry, the Fire Chief stated fire\nand EMS turnout times are both within two or two and a half\nminutes; the County does not separate out turnout time standards.\nThe Fire Chief continued the presentation.\nIn response to Councilmember Matarrese's inquiry, the Fire Chief\nstated a cardiac arrest is a life threatening Code Three; a non-\nthreatening Code Three would be someone who is experiencing chest\npains; a Code Two would be a non-serious trauma, such as a broken\nbone, flu symptoms, dizziness, or maternity complications.\nMayor Johnson inquired who develops the protocols, to which the\nFire Chief responded the codes are worldwide.\nThe Fire Chief concluded the presentation.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 8, "text": "Vice Mayor deHaan inquired whether the Fire Department has any\nstandards other than NFPA standards.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Fire Department does not have any\npolicy standards.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City's budget documents are considered\npolicy.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired what is the incremental benefit of\nsending sixteen firefighters as opposed to fourteen; further\ninquired whether responses to multiple incidents at the same time\nwould be better if fourteen firefighters are sent.\nThe Fire Chief responded the Fire Department can handle one medical\ncall and one fire call at the same time with the current response\nstandard; responding to two medical calls and one fire call at the\nsame time would leave the department short one engine; the Incident\nCommander would assess the situation and determine whether or not\nmutual aid is needed.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated some of the fire facilities are old;\nfirefighters live in the house next door to Station 3; replacing\nStation 3 would be in the millions of dollars as would be\nadditional staff.\nThe Fire Chief stated modern fire stations are designed to minimize\nthe distance between where firefighters are in the building and the\napparatus.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated standards have progressed with\ndesign; suggested that the matter be reviewed.\nThe Fire Chief stated that firefighters are wearing more gear,\nwhich adds to the turnout time.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(09-336) Discussion of Alameda-Contra Costa (AC) Transit's Service\nReductions and Provide Direction to Staff for Alameda-Contra Costa\n(AC) Transit's September 12, 2009 Community Workshop.\nThe Transportation Coordinator gave a brief presentation.\nMayor Johnson stated transportation to BART is critical the\nTransbay service is being left in tact.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember Matarrese stated the most feedback has been received\nregarding the Line 63 service; urged people to attend the community\nworkshop on September 12.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated AC Transit has been very thoughtful\nregarding the proposed changes that she has concerns with service\nat Encinal High School ridership numbers need to be carefully\nreviewed before cutting service.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated reductions have been made every two years\nbus service will be Alameda Point's transportation backbone ;\ndemographics and density have changed the Summerhouse area is\nextremely dense.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the reason for the proposed\ndiscontinuation of Line 50 is because ridership is low due to the\nHarbor Bay Business Park's contract with a private transit\ncontractor for service to the airport.\nCory Lavigne, AC Transit Service and Operations Planning Manager,\nresponded in the affirmative; stated competing with a free,\nreliable service is impossible.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether AC Transit has an overall policy\nregarding transporting passengers long distance versus BART.\nMr. Lavigne responded AC Transit has different policies to address\nvarious concerns; stated the primary issue is reviewing service\nthat does the least amount of harm to the most people; the East\nEnd's connection to the Fruitvale BART station will be reviewed.\nSpeakers Debra Arbuckle, Alameda; Former Councilmember Barbara\nKerr, Alameda; and Kathy Moehring, West Alameda Business\nAssociation (WABA) .\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated that he takes Line 19 from Marina\nVillage; that he is the last passenger when he gets off in\nEmeryville.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(09-337) Michael John Torrey, Alameda, thanked the City for\nimplementing the Code Red system.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(09-338 - ) Consideration of Allocating $2 Million of Measure WW Funds\nfor the Construction of a New Boys and Girls Club Recreation Center\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 10, "text": "on the Former Woodstock School Site.\nThe Interim City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam provided brief comments.\nProponents: George Phillips, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Sally\nRudloff, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Joyce Guy; Mike McMahon,\nAlameda Unified School District; Jon Thurston, Alameda Boys & Girls\nClub; Gig Codiga, Boys & Girls Club; Randy Marmor, Alameda Youth\nBasketball, Inc. i Burney Matthews, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Barry\nParker, Alameda Boys & Girls Club; Kathy Moehring, WABA; Irene\nKurarhuskas, Alameda Family Services; Reverend Roger Bauer,\nAlameda; Mario Mariani, Alameda; Nancy O'Malley, Alameda: and Don\nSherratt, Alameda Boys & Girls Club.\nOpponents Jean Sweeney, Alameda; Jim Sweeney, Alameda; Dorothy\nFreeman, Alameda; Joseph Woodard, Alameda; Pat Colburn, Alameda;\nRed Wetherill, Alameda; Former Councilmember Barbara Kerr, Alameda;\nDebra Arbuckle, Alameda; Richard Bangert, Alameda; and Lily Leung,\nAlameda.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Measure WW has a provision which allows\nfor recreation facilities close to residents; that she thinks the\nWoodstock Park Recreation Center renovation could be easily\nintegrated into the Boys and Girls Club recreational improvement\neffort; sufficient funds could be left over for priority projects\nbecause of distressed economic times.\nCouncilmember Matarrese inquired whether the Council Referral\nprocess is to allow Council to hear the request and provide\ndirection, to which the Interim City Manager responded in the\naffirmative.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how late the Boys and Girls Club is\nopen.\nMr. Phillips responded weekdays until 7:00 p.m.; Friday's until\n8:00 p.m.; all day Saturday; every day during summer and spring and\nholiday breaks; the building is available for others to use on\nSundays.\nCouncilmember Gilmore stated the State approval process would need\nto be completed in order to have the building approved since the\nbuilding would be on school district property; the State building\ncodes change as of January 1; inquired whether a new approval\nprocess would be necessary if a shovel is not put into the ground\nby January 1.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 11, "text": "Mr. Phillips responded the Boys and Girls Club has a Joint Use\nAgreement with the School District; the Alameda Unified School\nDistrict uses the facility during the day; the City, Boys and Girls\nClub, and School District would jointly govern and operate the\nfacility; a general contractor has been selected with compliance of\nprevailing wage laws; a new approval process would be necessary if\nconstruction does not start by January 1; $3 million in grant\nfunding will expire in January.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated Alameda Point is the key area earmarked to\nreceive $6.5 million; parks and recreation has $3.5 in\ndiscretionary funds; knowing what can and cannot be done is\nnecessary; the question is whether to go forward and have staff\nwork on the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Council Referral would be to direct\nstaff to apply for the $2 million grant and enter into a Joint Use\nAgreement that she would be happy to ensure that language includes\nthe appropriate amount of staff work.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether Councilmember Tam's direction can be\ndone under the referral process.\nThe Senior Assistant Attorney II stated the agenda description is\nfine from the Brown Act standpoint action has been taken in the\npast under Council Referral.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the intent [of Council Referrals) is\nto prevent Councilmembers, as individuals, from loading the City\nManager and staff with tasks that are not the will of the Council;\nthat he does not feel comfortable allocating $2 million tonight\nwithout having questions answered; Council needs to know whether\nthe $2 million would finish the project and whether the City would\nget public equity to meet the public investment; that he wants to\nknow whether there is anything in the national Boys and Girls Club\norganization that would result in the City getting less than $2\nmillion worth of equity; the City would put up cash, not the School\nDistrict ; that he wants to know more about whether the project\nwould meet the requirement of investing public money in a public\nuse facility.\nCouncilmember Gilmore inquired how quickly staff could get back\nwith answers; stated time is of the essence.\nThe Interim City Manager responded numbers could be provided;\nstated a determination cannot be made on behalf of the Park\nDistrict; executing final documents would take quite a while.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 12, "text": "Counci lmember Gilmore stated the first step should be to receive a\nbetter document from the Park District regarding eligibility; that\nshe is concerned with the time frame.\nThe Interim City Manager stated the application would be a\nreimbursement, not a grant questioned who would float the money in\nthe interim.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the Boys and Girls Club has funds to front\nthe project if the City enters into an agreement; the Boys and\nGirls Club would be reimbursed through the City's pass through\nfunding.\nThe Interim City Manager stated an oral report could be provided at\nthe September 15 Council Meeting; the financial analysis could be\nprovided later.\nMayor Johnson stated costs should be reviewed; estimates may be on\nthe high side.\nCouncilmember Matarrese stated the Boys and Girls Club programs\nprovide things that the City cannot do or does not provide enough\nof ; everything comes down to dollars and cents; the biggest concern\nis whether public use requirements are met, that the public use is\nmemorialized, and whether the project can be completed with the\ncontribution.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated the City has provided $450,000 in\nredevelopment funds.\nMr. Phillips stated $265,000 was provided.\nVice Mayor deHaan stated $250,000 was provided for the\narchitectural portion two years ago another $200,000 was\ncommitted; that he would like to receive a clarification of the\nreferral process.\n***\n(09-339) Councilmember Matarrese moved approval of continuing the\nmeeting past midnight.\nVice Mayor deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n***\nCouncilmember Matarrese moved approval of directing staff to answer\nthe technical questions outlined as well as other concerns and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 13, "text": "provide an oral report at the next Council Meeting.\nCouncilmember Gilmore seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(09-340) - Consideration of Mayor's nominations for appointment to\nthe Economic Development Commission and Historical Advisory Board.\nMayor Johnson nominated Robert McKean and Bruce C. Reeves for\nappointment to the Economic Development Commission and Matthew D.\nHoffman for appointment to the Historical Advisory Board.\n(09-341) Vice Mayor deHaan stated the three soccer fields at\nEstuary Park are unusable because of the lack of watering;\nrequested that the mater be reviewed.\nThe Park and Recreation Director stated that he would review the\nmatter.\n(09-342 - ) Councilmember Tam provided a report on the Federal\nEmergency Management Agency (FEMA) emergency training she attended;\nstated the best part of the training was the interaction with City\nstaff; policy changes need to be made on response times; labor\ncontracts need provisions that reflect the need to deal with\ndisasters.\nMayor Johnson inquired whether the nature of the provisions was\ndiscussed.\nCouncilmember Tam responded the Public Works Director in Oakland\nsaid that his staff can only do certain things stated multi- -\ntasking is necessary in a disaster.\nThe Police Chief stated the Police Department will be having\nmeetings with the Interim City Manager and Fire Department\nregarding lessons learned from Oakland as well as other\ncommunities ; an exercise is planned for the winter.\nMayor Johnson stated the School District should be included in the\nexercise.\nThe Interim City Manager inquired whether Councilmember Tam was\nreferring to amending vendor contracts or contracts with other\nagencies, to which Councilmember Tam responded both.\nThe Interim City Manager stated Alameda is an island; supplies need\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 14, "text": "to be on hand; the City should be prepared to function longer than\nninety-six hours; the City needs to be diligent.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Johnson adjourned the\nregular meeting at 12:09 a.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\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT CITY COUNCIL,\nALAMEDA REUSE AND REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ARRA)\nAND COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION (CIC) MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -SEPTEMBER 1, 2009- - -6:00 P.M.\nMayor Johnson convened the special joint meeting at 6:22 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present : Councilmembers / Board Members\n/\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Mayor/Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nThe special joint meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to\nconsider:\n(09-324 CC/ARRA/09-30 CIC) Conference with Real Property\nNegotiators i Property: Tideland Trust Properties; Negotiating\nparties : City of Alameda, ARRA, CIC and various leaseholders; Under\nnegotiation: Price and terms\n(09-325 CC) Conference with Real Property Negotiators; Property :\n1855 N. Loop Road and 1 Clubhouse Memorial Drive; Negotiating\nparties City Manager and Harbor Bay Isle Associates; Under\nnegotiation: Price and terms\nSpeakers Robert Sullwold, Alameda: and Jane Sullwold, Golf\nCommission, discussed 1855 N. Loop Road.\nFollowing the Closed Session, the Special Joint meeting was\nreconvened and Mayor/Chair Johnson announced Tideland Trust\nProperties, the  ouncil/Board/Commission provided instruction to\nthe negotiatori and regarding 1855 N. Loop Road, the City Manager\ndiscussed issues of price and terms Council provided instruction.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor/Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Joint meeting at 7:38 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger, City Clerk\nSecretary, CIC\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Joint Meeting\nAlameda City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2009-09-01", "page": 16, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION MEETING\nTUESDAY - - SEPTEMBER 1, 2009- - -7:29 P.M.\nChair Johnson convened the Special meeting at 7:47 p.m.\nCommissioner Matarrese led the Pledge of Allegiance.\nRoll Call -\nPresent\n:\nCommissioners deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,\nTam and Chair Johnson - 5.\nAbsent :\nNone.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nChair Johnson announced that the recommendation to award Contract\n[paragraph no. 09-32] was removed and would return at later date.\nCommissioner Gilmore moved approval of the remainder of the Consent\nCalendar.\nCommissioner Matarrese seconded the motion, which carried by\nunanimous voice vote - 5. [Items so enacted or adopted are\nindicated by as asterisk preceding the paragraph number. . ]\n(*09-31) - Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse\nand Redevelopment Authority, and CIC Meeting held on August 3,\n2009. Approved.\n(09-32) - Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of\n$151,315 to Ray's Electric, Inc. for Park Street and Buena Vista\nAvenue Utility Undergrounding. Not heard.\nAGENDA ITEMS\nNone\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Chair Johnson adjourned the\nSpecial Meeting at 7:48 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nSecretary\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown\nAct.\nSpecial Meeting\nCommunity Improvement Commission\nSeptember 1, 2009", "path": "CityCouncil/2009-09-01.pdf"}