{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - -DECEMBER 20, 2011--7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers Bonta, deHaan, Johnson, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\nNone.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(11-594) Presentation of Certificate of Service to Social Service Human Relations Board\nMember Reginald James.\nMayor Gilmore presented the certificate to Mr. James.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(11-595) Jim Franz announced the Community Needs Survey is available on-line in\nEnglish, Chinese, and Spanish.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the minutes [paragraph no. 11-596 and the resolution\nCeasing the Transfer of the Surcharge [paragraph no. 11-606 were removed from the\nConsent Calendar for discussion.\nCouncilmember moved approval of the remainder of the consent calendar.\nCouncilmember seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n[Items so enacted or adopted are indicated by an asterisk preceding the paragraph\nnumber.]\n(11-596) Minutes of the Special Joint City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment\nAuthority, and Community Improvement Commission and Regular City Council\nMeetings held on November 15, 2011. Approved.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of the minutes with an amendment to page 10\nto change his vote from abstaining to present not voting.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*11-597) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,297,337.39.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 2, "text": "(*11-598) Recommendation to Accept the Special Tax and Local Bond Measure Annual\nReport. Accepted.\n(*11-599) Recommendation to Accept the Citywide Development Fee and Fleet\nIndustrial Supply Center/Catellus Traffic Fee Report. Accepted.\n(*11-600) Recommendation to Accept the Police and Fire Services Fee Report.\nAccepted.\n(*11-601) Recommendation to Accept the Annual Report for the Public Art Fund as\nRequired by the Public Art Ordinance and Accept a Status Update on the Public Art\nProgram. Accepted.\n(*11-602) Recommendation to Conduct the Affordable Housing Ordinance Annual\nReview Consistent with Section 27-1 of the Alameda Municipal Code and California\nGovernment Code Section 66001 and Accept the Annual Report. Accepted.\n(*11-603) Resolution No. 14637, \"Setting the 2012 Regular City Council Meeting Dates.'\nAdopted.\n(*11-604) Resolution No. 14638, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Grant\nFunding Agreement with the Transportation Fund for Clean Air Program Manager Fund\nfor $230,900 for the Local Match for the Highway Safety Improvement Program Grant\nfor the Park Street Safety Improvement Project and to Execute all Necessary\nDocuments.\" Adopted.\n(*11-605) Resolution No. 14639, \"Approving the Northern California Power Agency\nMarket Purchase Agreement.\" Adopted.\n(11-606) Resolution No. 14640, \"Ceasing the Transfer of the Surcharge From the Golf\nEnterprise Fund to the General Fund.\" Adopted; and\n(11-606 A) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by\nAmending Subsection 3-28.9 (Payment In-Lieu of Taxes) of Section 3-28 (Payment of\nTaxes) of Chapter III (Finance and Taxation) to Exempt the Golf Fund from the Payment\nIn-Lieu of Taxes. Not introduced.\nThe Assistant City Manager gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she has no problem with adopting the resolution;\nhowever, she has a problem with exempting the Golf Fund from the Payment In-Lieu of\nTaxes (PILOT); Alameda Municipal Power (AMP) could use money to pay for\n[increased] costs in medical benefits for their employees if Council would allow an\nexemption for AMP; implications on other Enterprise Funds should be reviewed and\nconsideration should be given to delay the PILOT exemption until the day that Golf is no\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 3, "text": "longer an Enterprise Fund.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Enterprise Fund would still pay into Internal Service\nFunds, but not cost allocation, to which the Assistant City Manager responded cost\nallocation is internal service and would cease administratively.\nMayor Gilmore stated services would still be provided; the City should continue to\ncharge the Golf Enterprise Fund for overhead costs until a decision is made about\noutsourcing to an operator or until a cost allocation study is done to see if costs need to\nbe allocated differently.\nThe City Manager stated the issue could be handled administratively after the internal\nstudy has been completed.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she does not think Council's intent has been to\ncease cost allocation; other departments would have to subsidize the Golf Course if the\nGolf Course did not pay cost allocation.\nThe City Manager stated staff would come back to Council after the study is completed.\nMayor Gilmore stated that she has a problem with treating one Enterprise Fund\ndifferently from others.\nThe City Manager stated the Golf Course has not always been an Enterprise Fund; staff\nanticipates handling services in different ways, such as the Animal Shelter; by\ncharacter, the Golf Course is a recreation facility; treating the Golf Course differently\nfrom other sports does not make a lot of sense from a policy standpoint; AMP and the\nSewer Fund have lots of reasons to be separate Enterprise Funds; the idea of the\nPILOT is to capture the amount that the land could have generated in property taxes;\nthe same logic applies to every piece of City land.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she disagrees with the City Manager; historically, the\ngolf complex had been a part of the Recreation and Parks Department and then\nbecame an enterprise fund; the Golf Course should absorb costs like any other\ndepartment.\nThe City Manager stated function should be the issue, not form.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she chooses not to exempt the Golf Enterprise Fund\nfrom the PILOT.\nThe City Manager stated the issue is whether it is more important to be consistent in\nterminology versus form; the Golf Course is underwater from an asset perspective;\nshutting down the Golf Course is not an option.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired when the PILOT was established, to which the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 4, "text": "Assistant City Manager responded 1993.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Assistant City Manager stated\nCouncil has taken a number of steps to change the surcharge over time; cost allocation\nwas reset in 2004; the Return on Investment was eliminated a couple of years ago.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the Golf Course is different from other recreational\nfacilities because most recreation facilities are available to the entire public; inquired\nwhether the City could expect a PILOT or similar payment from a lessee under a long-\nterm lease.\nThe City Manager responded that he does not know if the market would support the\nidea at this time; questioned whether a PILOT would be required if the City built a swim\ncenter.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she would not want to set a precedent requiring a\nPILOT for any facility with a lock.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Golf Course is an integral part of Alameda.\nMayor Gilmore suggested that bring back a discussion on the PILOT for the Golf\nCourse and other Enterprise Funds; inquired whether there is a deadline for a decision\non the PILOT, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated there is some logic in having consistency for all Enterprise\nFunds; however, Council is not locked into treating all Enterprise Funds the same;\nmaking a decision on the PILOT should wait until March; direction should be provided\non Councilmember Tam's suggestion [to look at implications on other Enterprise Funds\nand consider delaying the PILOT exemption until Golf is no longer an Enterprise Fund].\nCouncilmember Tam stated the issue is not one of form over function but is an equity\nissue in dealing with all Enterprise Funds and opportunity costs; possibly, the PILOT\ncould be directed to a reserve or capital fund for Golf; the funds have a fundamental use\nbeyond consistency.\nThe City Manager stated the Golf Course is the only facility being charged property tax;\na PILOT is not being charged to the senior facility; that he does not understand the AMP\nhealth benefit issue noted by Councilmember Tam.\nCouncilmember Tam stated funds have an end use; AMP might be able to pay for\nemployee's increased health benefits if an exemption to the PILOT was given.\nMayor Gilmore stated the issue should be part of a longer discussion to review all of the\nEnterprise Funds.\nThe City Manager stated there is a $6 million capital need at the Golf Course; the\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 5, "text": "money has to come from somewhere.\nMayor Gilmore stated the operation of the Golf Course is still in limbo.\nCouncilmember Tam moved adoption of the resolution with direction to investigate\nissues raised with respect to the PILOT and consistency across the board for all\nEnterprise Funds and bring everything back in March.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, adoption of the resolution carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nOn the call for the question, the direction to staff carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Bonta, Johnson, Tam and Mayor Gilmore - 1. Noes:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1.\n(*11-607) Ordinance No.3039, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Lease\nAgreement with the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter for the Operation of the\nAlameda Animal Shelter.\" Finally passed.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(11-608) Recommendation to Approve Modifications to the Tree Removal Policy\nContained in the Master Street Tree Plan.\nThe Public Works Director gave a brief presentation.\nIn favor with amendments: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business Association (PSBA); and\nChristopher Buckley, Alameda.\nDiscussed bike parking: Jon Spangler, Alameda; and Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft, Planning\nBoard President.\nProvided historical background on street trees: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how parks would be addressed, to which the Public\nWorks Director responded the draft policy would be presented at the next Recreation\nand Parks Commission meeting.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated many park trees are very old, specific species and are\noften replaced with common trees; inquired whether private properties have removal\nlimitations, to which the Public Works Director responded specific trees are protected,\nsuch as Coastal Live Oaks with a ten inch or greater diameter.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the Public Works Director stated 20-\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 6, "text": "25 sites have been identified for bike parking.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the public wants to have different tree varieties planted\nin the Park Street area.\nThe Public Works Director stated a survey was conducted; staff would meet with a\nlandscape architect; the matter is tentatively scheduled for the January 9th Planning\nBoard meeting.\nMayor Gilmore stated park tree inventory was compiled a while back and should be\npresented to the Recreation and Park Commission along with the guidelines.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the staff report notes that a property owner would be\nnotified of a newly planted [street] tree and would be responsible for watering; inquired\nwhether the City would step in if proper care is not given, to which the Public Works\nDirector responded in the affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated the suggested improvements are significant and welcome; that\nhe does not see a material difference between the need to remove a tree for safety to\nthe general public and removing a tree that would present an imminent threat to public\nsafety; a tree that would present an imminent threat to public safety should not require\nnoticing.\nThe Public Works Director stated the intent would be to notify the property owner prior\nto removal.\nVice Mayor Bonta suggested adding \"notice when feasible or practical\".\nThe Public Works Director stated \"when feasible\" would be added to the noticing\nrequirement.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the matter could be clarified by not using the term\n\"imminent threat\" in both areas; a tree could be dead but not be at risk of falling.\nVice Mayor Bonta stated that he likes Mr. Buckley's recommendations to delete the\nthree day noticing requirement for trees that are dying and have significant decay and\nclarifying that 70% decay would be determined by the cross section of a tree.\nThe Public Works Director stated if noticing is the same [three days], separate sections\nwould not be needed.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether an email interest list has been established for people\ninterested in tree issues, to which the Public Works Director responded that a list would\nbe developed.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether every tree is pruned on a five-year; to which\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 7, "text": "the Public Works Director responded approximately 90% are pruned.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a few years ago a ten-year pruning cycle was\nsuggested for Gibbons Drive; inquired whether anything would be noted in the proposed\npolicy that would ensure that a Gibbons Drive crises would not happen again.\nThe Public Works Director responded that removal is only being addressed tonight;\nstated the Master Street Tree Plan makes recommendations for pruning; in the last five\nyears, Council has ensured that there is on-going funding to maintain the five-year\npruning cycle.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the three-week noticing [for an informational\ncommunity meeting prior to tree removal] would provide enough time to meet the new\nCity Council noticing requirement.\nThe Public Works Director responded the intent would be to allow someone to address\nan issue under Oral Communications.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council would not have the ability to act on anything\nunder Oral Communications.\nMs. Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Planning Board felt that people should have been updated\nbefore the work started on the Park Street Streetscape Project; having the work start\nwithin two years of approval should be fine.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated updates could be presented at a Council meeting;\nissues could be addressed at that point.\nThe Public Works Director stated the informational community meeting could be\nchanged to a Council meeting, and the three-week requirement could be deleted.\nThe City Manager stated the three-week noticing was added as an abundance of\ncaution based upon the outcry over what happened on Park Street.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the City Council would have a second bite to\nreform or change a prior vote.\nThe Public Works Director responded it would depend upon how the matter was\nagendized; stated the vote would not be changed if the meeting was informational;\nCouncil could agendize the issue at a future meeting.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council would have discretion to send the matter back\nto the Planning Board for further review.\nMayor Gilmore stated it is important not to go so far off in one direction that it becomes\nimpossible to initiate and implement the plan; the public should be given the opportunity\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 8, "text": "to provide input; delaying the project would be the issue.\nThe Public Works Director stated Council approval would be good for two years; after a\nyear, an informational meeting would be held, but the decision would still stand.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she wants to resolve the problem of having the\npublic attend a meeting and Council not being able to do anything about it.\nThe Public Works Director stated the Council decision would be final provided that the\nproject commences within two years of Council approval; an informational community\nmeeting would be held three weeks prior to commencement of the project if construction\noccurs one year after Council approval.\nThe Assistant City Manager inquired whether an informational item would be presented\nto Council or a community meeting would be held, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded a community meeting would be held.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she does not think that people know to water their\nstreet trees; suggested providing information to the public regarding the matter.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation with\nmodifications discussed.\nCouncilmember Bonta seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\n(11-609) Introduction of Ordinance Amending Sections 6-27.4, 6.52.1, and 22-8.1 of the\nAlameda Municipal Code to Allow Sale of Goods from a Rolling Store with Approval of a\nSpecial Event Permit, Conditional Use Permit, or Encroachment Permit; and Adoption of\nFood Truck Program Guidelines, including Standard Conditions or Approval for\nConditional Use Permit or Encroachment Permit for Rolling Stores. Introduced.\nThe Chief Operating Officer gave a Power Point presentation.\nNeutral: Mark Sorenson, Alameda Chamber of Commerce.\nProponent: Jon Spangler, Alameda; Brad Wick, South Shore Center.\nOpponent: Ken Dorrance, Alameda; and Kaye Pryor, Alameda.\nSuggested a revision: Robb Ratto, PSBA.\n* *\nCouncilmember deHaan left the dais at 9:00 and returned at 9:01 p.m.\n*\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wick would have the ability to chose the\ntype of food trucks at the South Shore Center in order not to compete with other\nestablishments, to which Mr. Wick responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether Mr. Wick would utilize food trucks for special\nevents or on a re-occurring basis.\nMr. Wick responded food trucks would be used for summer music concerts or special\nevents; stated the matter would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether food trucks would be restricted to Alameda Point, the\nCollege of Alameda, South Shore Shopping Center, and the Marina Village and Harbor\nBay Business Parks.\nThe Chief Operating Officer responded the five areas would be used for off-street\nlocations not regulated by the State Vehicle Code; the State Vehicle Code states that\nfood trucks cannot be prohibited, but can be regulated on public streets for health and\nlife safety issues.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether if nothing is done tonight, could a food truck set up\nshop on Park Street as long as it has a legal parking space and does not encroach on\nthe sidewalk, to which the Chief Operating Officer responded in the affirmative.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether permits would be good for one year.\nThe Chief Operating Officer responded in the affirmative; stated an administrative\nreview would be conducted after a year.\nMayor Gilmore inquired how food trucks would not create a disincentive for brick and\nmortar businesses wishing to relocate at Alameda Point.\nThe City Manager responded Anaheim is struggling with the issue; there should be a\nclearer legal landscape on which to operate by the time the City deals with Alameda\nPoint.\nCouncilmember Johnson questioned whether food trucks would be flooding into\nAlameda; inquired whether food trucks would pay sales tax, to which the Chief\nOperating Officer responded that she believes so, but would check.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether South Shore Shopping Center would be the\nholder of the permit, to which the Chief Operating Officer responded maybe.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether the land owner would not be required to take\nout a permit, to which the Chief Operating Officer responded in the affirmative; stated\nthe property owner would need to agree to allow use of the property.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 10, "text": "Councilmember Johnson questioned whether the City could be exempt since Alameda\nis a Charter City.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the issue is of statewide concern because it is\ngoverned by the Vehicle Code.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a lot of things could be included in the Vehicle Code\nthat are not specifically vehicle code related; the City should not concede that anything\nin the Vehicle Code is a matter of State pre-emption.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated parking is considered a matter of statewide concern;\ncourt decisions, specifically about food trucks, have been made interpreting the Vehicle\nCode.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated a lot of businesses would be attracted at Alameda Point\nif Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory comes to the area.\nThe Chief Operating Officer stated the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority\nwould have to consent to any Conditional Use Permit.\nVice Mayor Bonta inquired whether the City would have the luxury of making decisions\nbased on a diversified business selection, to which the Chief Operating Officer\nresponded in the negative.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the conditions would allow for a level playing field; food\ntrucks go where people are; vacant lots do not invite food trucks.\nThe Chief Operating Officer stated laying the groundwork is important in case\nsomething arises.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated five years ago, Council had discussions regarding a\nfood truck that wanted to be at a park; there was concern that a lot of non-profit groups\nhad their own concessions; there was an outcry from the business community when\ngourmet food trucks were considered; competition would be a very concerning factor.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City can only regulate food trucks on public streets\nfor health and safety reasons.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the City has not been challenged on the issue.\nThe Assistant City Attorney stated the City could establish regulations pertaining to\nhealth and safety; having an encroachment permit is a big process.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Council should go forward with the ordinance and not\nwait until there is a problem.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 11, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated that he is concerned with food trucks in the parks.\nThe Chief Operating Officer stated the Recreation and Parks Department is concerned\nalso; special events would be the only reason to allow food trucks in parks.\nMayor Gilmore stated the legal landscape has changed and has constrained the\nmanner in which the City can act; food trucks would have an easier time doing business\nin Alameda if Council does act on the issue; acting on the issue would make the entry\nbarrier for food trucks a little higher which would benefit existing businesses; having the\npolicy framework in place is important so that the landscape and supply and demand\ncan be tested; existing businesses would be protected.\nVice Mayor Bonta moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Vice Mayor Bonta stated the proposed ordinance is a moderate\napproach within the balance of the law as it exists; the City cannot change State law.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she does not agree with a lot of things in State law;\nthe City has no control over food trucks now.\nCouncilmember Tam commended staff for being proactive on the issue; that she\nappreciates the outreach strategy and robust discussion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(11-610) Introduction of Ordinance Amending the Alameda Municipal Code by Revising\nSection 2-1.2(a) (Agendas) and 2-1.3 (Special Meeting) of Article I (The City Council);\nAdding Section 2-5 (Applicability of Sunshine Ordinance) and Section 2-22 (Open\nGovernment Commission) to Article Il (Boards and Commissions); and Amending\nSection 2-93.1 (Primary Regulatory and Enforcement Body) of Article VIII (Sunshine\nOrdinance) of Chapter Il (Administration), Making Sections Compatible with the\nSunshine Ordinance and Moving the Establishment, Membership and Duties of the\nOpen Government Commission. Introduced.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved introduction of the ordinance.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote\n- 5.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-611) The City Manager announced: 1) the City has received the distinguished\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2011-12-20", "page": 12, "text": "Budget Presentation award; the Certificate of Appreciation has been presented to the\nController; 2) the Fire Department is investigating the three alarm fire at the Alameda\nBeach and Tennis Club; 3) the Animal Shelter will be closed from noon on December\n29th through January 2nd and will reopen to the public on January 3rd under the\nmanagement of the Friends of the Alameda Animal Shelter; 4) starting on January 3rd\nthe Estuary Crossing Shuttle will include the Wind River campus; and 5) on January\n30th Alameda Municipal Power will have a meeting regarding renewable portfolio\nissues.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\nNone.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(11-612) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Recreation and\nPark Commission.\nMayor Gilmore nominated Ann M. Cooke for appointment to the Recreation and Park\nCommission.\n(11-613) Councilmember Tam announced that she attended an Alameda County Waste\nManagement Authority meeting.\n(11-614) Mayor Gilmore stated the Recreation and Park Commission is interested in\nreducing members to five.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated the issue could be discussed at the February 7th\nCouncil meeting.\n(11-615) Vice Mayor Bonta announced that he attended the Alameda County\nTransportation Authority meeting.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 9:57 p.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nDecember 20, 2011", "path": "CityCouncil/2011-12-20.pdf"}