{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 21, 2012--7:00 P.M.\nActing Mayor Bonta convened the meeting at 7:08 p.m.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Acting\nMayor Bonta - 5.\nAbsent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(12-065) The City Clerk announced the Public Hearing to consider an appeal\n[paragraph no. 12-077 would not be heard because the appeal was withdrawn and the\nCity Manager announced the recommendation to approve \"Opting-Out\" [paragraph no.\n12-080 was withdrawn by staff.\nThe City Manager outlined the reasons for withdrawing the item.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she is in support of the ordinance but is not in favor\nof the process; cities have not been provided an opportunity for public input.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated the Council and community should have had an\nopportunity to discuss the matter.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she is happy that the City is opting in on the ordinance.\nActing Mayor Bonta and Councilmember Johnson concurred with Councilmember Tam.\nCouncilmember Tam stated Alameda High School students requested the City Council\nto implement a ban on single-use plastic bags two years ago; at that time,\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that the State or county would be moving forward on\nthe issue; an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was performed; certification was\ndelayed in the hopes of conducting public outreach; the ordinance includes the\nopportunity for ten months of public outreach between now and January 1, 2013.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she was very supportive of the concept when she\nwas a Stop Waste representative; Alameda has a Styrofoam ban and is a leader in\nenvironmental issues.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 2, "text": "(12-066) Jon Spangler, Alameda, thanked Council for opting in on the single-use bag\nordinance; stated ten months would provide plenty of time for outreach.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the Consent Calendar, including approval of a\nrevised exhibit provided for the recommendation to approve and transmit the Initial and\nSecond Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules [paragraph no. 12-070].\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n4. [Absent: Mayor Gilmore - 1.]\n(*12-067) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting and the Special Joint City\nCouncil and Community Improvement Commission Meeting Held on January 17, 2012.\nApproved.\n(*12-068) Ratified bills in the amount of $2,644,680.88.\n(*12-069). Recommendation to Support the Friends of the Parks Fit City Challenge\nProgram. Accepted.\n(*12-070) Recommendation to Approve and Transmit the Initial and Second Recognized\nObligation Payment Schedules to the Oversight Board, State Department of Finance,\nand Alameda County Auditor-Controller. Accepted with revised schedule.\n(*12-071) Recommendation to Adopt the Legislative Program for 2012. Accepted.\n(*12-072) Recommendation to Accept Staff's Responses to the Regional Sustainable\nCommunities Strategy - Alternative Scenarios. Accepted.\n(*12-073) Resolution No. 14655, \"Supporting the FOCUS Priority Development Area\nApplication for the Northern Waterfront.\" Adopted.\n(*12-074) Resolution No. 14656, \"Rescinding Resolution No. 12611, Which Amended\nResolution No. 12567 Establishing Rules of Order Governing the Proceedings and\nOrder of Business of City Council Meetings, By Amending Section 1(k) Pertaining to the\nAdjournment of City Council Meetings.\" Adopted.\nREGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(12-075) Resolution No. 14657, \"Appointing Michael Radding as a Member of the Social\nService Human Relations Board.\" Adopted.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved adoption of the resolution.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 4.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 3, "text": "[Absent: Mayor Gilmore - 1.]\nThe City Clerk administered the Oath of Office and presented Mr. Radding with a\ncertificate of appointment.\n(12-076) Public Hearing to Consider Approving Amendment One to the Fiscal Year\n2011-2012 Community Block Grant Action Plan and a Housing and Community\nDevelopment Needs Statement for the Community Development Block Grant Annual\nPlan for Fiscal Year 2012-2013, and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and\nExecute Related Documents, Agreements, and Modifications.\nThe Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program Manager and Social\nService Human Relations Board (SSHRB) Chair gave a Power Point presentation.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired how income is generated, to which the CDBG\nProgram Manager responded from the Residential Revolving Loan Fund.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether a decline in funding is expected to continue.\nThe CDBG Program Manager responded in the affirmative; stated the proposed\nallocation for Fiscal Year 2012 - 2013 is expected to be reduced by 7.2%.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated having food as the second highest priority is shocking;\ninquired whether food was expected to be such a high priority.\nThe SSHRB Chair responded the [Community Needs] Survey was conducted differently\nthis year and included a different group of people; stated many children are living in\npoverty in Alameda.\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired when the Survey would be conducted again, to which the\nSSHRB Chair responded hopefully in three years.\nSpoke about increased needs and urged increasing program funding: Liz Varela,\nBuilding Futures with Women and Children; Erin Scott, Family Violence Law Center;\nHank Leeper, Alameda Food Bank; Doug Biggs, Alameda Point Collaborative and\nSSHRB Member.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the matter is something that should be taken into\nconsideration during budget discussions scheduled for next Thursday; perhaps General\nFund support is needed.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated the SSHRB does a lot of work in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 4, "text": "analyzing information and making recommendations to Council; every year, there is less\nmoney and more need.\nActing Mayor Bonta stated affirmative steps need to be taken to ensure a social service\nsafety net is free of holes and not shredded; the City should explore funding from\nfederal, State and County grants or General Fund trade offs; revenue generating should\nbe part of safety net discussions and should be included as part of budget discussions.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated that he does not see any additional funding in the\nbudget.\nThe City Manager stated the General Fund is $4.4 million in the red; cautioned the\nCouncil to be very careful before taking on governmental functions that cannot be\nfunded at levels needed; the County is the provider for social services; the State has\npushed responsibilities down to the County; the County will try to push responsibilities\ndown to cities.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1.]\n(12-077) Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal of the Planning Board Action to Approve\na Third Amendment and Development Plans, PLN11-0328, and Street Improvement\nPlans for a Retail Center at Alameda Landing (Tract 7884). Not heard; and\n(12-077A) Adoption of Resolution Upholding Planning Board Resolution PB-12-01\nPlanning Board Action to Approve a Third Addendum and Development Plans PLN11-\n0328 and Street Improvement Plans for a Retail Center at Alameda Landing (Tract\n7884). Not heard.\n(12-078) Recommendation to Approve a First Amendment to the Contract with Suarez\n& Munoz for the Park Street Streetscape Project, No. P.W. 10-09-03, for a Total\nContract Amount of $1,576,583, Including Contingencies, and Appropriate $34,000 from\nMeasure B (Fund 215.1), $41,000 from the Parking Meter Fund (Fund 224), and\n$25,000 from the Parking In-Lieu Fund (Fund 223).\nThe City Engineer gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 8:00 p.m. and returned at 8:02 p.m.\n*\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the City Engineer responded the\ntrees would have 36-inch boxes instead of 24-inch boxes.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what was the size of the trees in the previous phase,\nto which the City Engineer responded 15 and 24-gallon containers.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 5, "text": "Councilmember Johnson inquired what is the difference in cost between the 24-inch box\nand 36-inch box trees, to which the City Engineer responded $12,000.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry, the City Engineer stated the $12,000\nwould come from Measure B; parking kiosks would be funded by the Parking Meter\nFund.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated something else could be done with $12,000;\nquestioned whether larger trees would make a significant difference.\nThe City Engineer stated businesses and residents feel that the streetscape lost its\ncharacter because of the tree removal.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Measure B funds can be used for other things; trees\ngrow rapidly.\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired how growth rate differs; to which the City Engineer\nresponded growth rate depends upon species.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry regarding funding constraints, the City\nManager stated the money [for the Suarez & Munzo Contract amendment] would come\nfrom funds set aside specifically for infrastructure projects; $34,000 would come from\nMeasure B, $41,000 from the Parking Meter Fund, and $25,000 from the Parking In-\nLieu Fund; Council would be unable to reprogram the money into different functions.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated other transportation related projects could be done\nwith the $12,000.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether the $12,000 could be used for paratransit\nprograms, to which the Assistant City Manager responded in the negative.\nThe City Engineer stated the $12,000 could be used for resurfacing, bus shelters, and\nsidewalks.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired what would be displaced if Measure B funds were used\nfor the trees.\nThe Public Works Director responded the money being allocated is currently in the\nreserves; stated if programmed, the money would most likely be used for sidewalk\nrepair; approximately 30 sidewalks could be repaired.\nIn response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry the City Engineer stated businesses\nand patrons expressed concern that there were too few parking kiosks for longer blocks;\nthe manufacturer suggested increasing the number of kiosks in certain areas.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 6, "text": "In response to Acting Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the Public Works Director a mature tree\ncould mean a fully grown tree; planting a fully grown tree would not be possible; the\nlargest possible tree would be a 36-inch box tree; within a year, a 24-inch box tree\nwould look the same as a 36-inch box tree; a 24-inch box tree would do better because\nit would have more time to adjust to its surroundings.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the City has a lot of deferred maintenance; spending\n$41,000 for additional parking kiosks makes sense; that she would prefer having 24-\ninch box trees and letting the trees grow.\nCouncilmember deHaan inquired whether the $41,000 [for additional parking kiosks]\ncould be used for the $25,000 change order, to which the Public Works Director\nresponded not the full $25,000.\nUrged installing additional kiosks and smaller trees: Robb Ratto, Park Street Business\nAssociation.\nUrged using Measure B funding for sidewalk repairs, installing smaller trees, and\nincreasing the number of bike racks: Jon Spangler, Alameda,\nActing Mayor Bonta stated Park Street is a very special part of the community; that he is\nin favor of investing in Park Street; the proposed investments help the businesses;\npeople have requested mature trees.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation with an\namendment not to spend $12,000 for larger trees.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Johnson and Tam - 3. Noes: Acting Mayor\nBonta - 1. [Absent: Mayor Gilmore - 1.]\n(12-079) Recommendation to Accept a Report on the Status of the City's Athletic Fields.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson requested an update on the swimming pools.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the City has a shortage of swimming pools;\nhigh school pools are used for all swimming activity; some facilities are over fifty years\nold.\nCouncilmember Tam requested clarification on the City's access to the all weather field\nat the College of Alameda and how said field could be turned into a resource for the\nCity.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director stated the City does not have access to said field;\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 7, "text": "the City has access to the hardball field through a joint agreement; staff is working with\nthe College of Alameda regarding having access to the all weather field.\nCouncilmember Tam stated staff has been working on the issue for quite a while;\ninquired how Council could help.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded hopefully, some progress will be made in\nthe next few months; stated staff will advise Council as soon as more details are known.\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired why the City does not have access to the all weather field.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the Peralta College District has a\ncomplicated set of use policies; stated cost is the main issue; custodial and gardening\nstaff would need to be paid overtime; the City has been able to get around the issue on\na case-by-case basis.\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired whether any thought has been given to potential all\nweather field locations.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded potential sites include Alameda Point,\nBeltline property, and the North Loop Road property.\nUrged the report not be adopted: Joe Van Winkle, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Johnson moved approval of the staff recommendation.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice vote:\nAyes: Councilmembers Johnson, Tam and Acting Mayor Bonta - 3.\nNoes:\nCouncilmember deHaan - 1. [Absent: Mayor Gilmore - 1.]\n(12-080) Recommendation to Approve \"Opting-Out\" of the Alameda County Waste\nManagement Authority (ACWMA) Ordinance Prohibiting the Use of Free Singe-Use\nCarry Out Bags to Allow Additional Time for Public Outreach; and Consider Related\nResolution; and\n(12-080A) Recommendation to Reject \"Opting-Out\" of the ACWMA Ordinance Relating\nto Mandatory Recycling for Certain Commercial Businesses, Multi-Family Properties\nWith at Least Five Units, and Self Haulers; and Consider Related Resolution. Not heard.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\nNone.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\nNone.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 8, "text": "COUNCIL REFERRALS\n(12-081) Consider Waiving Confidential Attorney-Client/Work Product Privilege on\na\nNovember 11, 2011 Memo, Which Offers a Legal Analysis of Article XXII, Section 12 of\nthe City Charter regarding the Preservation of Parkland Through Sale or Exchanges.\nCouncilmember Tam gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of waiving attorney-client/work product privilege\nwith any appropriate redactions made by the City Attorney.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember deHaan stated that he wholeheartedly supports the\nCouncil Referral; he initially requested the opinion in 2010; the community is entitled to\na full interpretation of the opinion.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she concurs with the motion because the City\nAttorney might not have any redactions; the City Attorney should have the opportunity to\nmake redactions if appropriate.\nThe City Attorney stated the opinion was not intended to be public but was written to\nprovide Council with risk analysis; that she would prefer to be able to redact some\nthings before releasing the opinion.\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired whether the waiver could be limited to tonight's Council\nReferral without any greater waiver precedence, to which the City Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nVice Mayor Bonta recommended that the motion be amended to have the waiver be\nlimited to tonight's Council Referral.\nCouncilmember Tam accepted the amendment to the motion; requested that the City\nAttorney summarize the opinion if the Council waives the confidential, attorney-\nclient/work product privilege by majority vote.\nUrged release of the memo: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nUrged release of the memo without any redaction: Jane Sullwold, Alameda.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1.]\nThe City Attorney gave a brief summary of the memo.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 9, "text": "Councilmember deHaan stated the concern is how the Charter is interpreted\n(12-082) Consider Directing Staff to Place a Charter Amendment on the November\n2012 Ballot that would Amend Charter Section 22-12 Regarding Sale of Public Parks.\nCouncilmember deHaan gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she has always been under the impression that a\nsuper majority vote would be needed [for selling of park land].\nActing Mayor Bonta stated the land swap proposal would be addressed at the March 6,\n2012 City Council meeting; requested clarification from the City Attorney regarding the\nCouncil Referral.\nThe City Attorney stated the Referral does not address whether there should be a land\nswap for the Mif Albright Course for some North Loop Road land; an initiative is being\ncirculated within the community; the City Attorney's office received a request to prepare\na title and summary so that petitioners could begin collecting signatures in the hopes\nthat enough signatures would be collected to place the matter on the ballot;\nCouncilmember deHaan's Council Referral requests Council to put the measure on the\nballot without the signature requirement; voter approval is not necessary for leases,\nconcessions, or swapping City park land for similar park land.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether said exceptions were in the Charter when\napproved by 83% of the voters 31 years ago, to which the City Attorney responded in\nthe affirmative.\nActing Mayor Bonta stated since 1992, signatures have always been gathered for\ncitizens' initiatives; inquired why an exception should be made for the time honored\npractice.\nThe City Attorney stated a 2001 case required California Environmental Quality Act\n(CEQA) compliance in order for Council to put an initiative on a ballot; voter initiatives\ndo not require CEQA compliance; staff would need to provide Council with a timeline on\nhow quickly a CEQA report could be done and said report would need to be certified\nbefore Council could take action to place the matter on the ballot.\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired whether any decision made by Council on March 6th would\nnot be impacted by any potential Charter amendment on the November ballot, to which\nthe City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated tonight is the first time he has heard of the CEQA\nrequirement; that he would like to receive a briefing on the matter before March 6th\nActing Mayor Bonta inquired whether Councilmember deHaan's proposal is identical to\nthe citizen's petition, to which Councilmember deHaan responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 10, "text": "Addressed the potential land swap: David Macy, Alameda; Valerie Newman, Alameda;\nAshley Jones, Alameda; James Leach, Alameda; Dana Sack; and Red Wetherill,\nAlameda.\nUrged having the Council place a measure on the ballot: Sandy Sullivan, Alameda;\nCecilia Herrera, Alameda; former Councilmember Bill Withrow, Alameda; Marie Kane,\nAlameda; Cathy Leong, Alameda; Reyla Graber, Alameda; Patricia Gannon, Alameda;\nGretchen Lipow, Alameda; former Councilmember Lil Arnerich, Alameda; Joe Van\nWinkle, Alameda; and Jane Sullwold, Alameda.\nUrged the Council not to place the measure on the ballot because it is not necessary to\nprevent the land swap: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\n***\nActing Mayor Bonta left the dais at 9:58 p.m. and returned at 10:00 p.m.\n* *\nThe City Attorney read the following from the Municipal Law Handbook: \"The submittal\nof proposals to a vote of the people of the State or particular community is not\nconsidered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act; thus environmental\nreview of initiatives is not required under CEQA before putting a voter initiated measure\non a ballot; however, an initiative generated and placed on a ballot by a City Council is\nconsidered a discretionary project under CEQA and thus an environmental review under\nCEQA is required\"; stated that she strongly feels that a CEQA analysis needs to be\ndone; if Council decides to approve the Memorandum of Agreement on March 6th, the\nproject would not necessarily impact a vote in November.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the CEQA analysis would not be a full blown\nenvironmental review, to which the City Attorney responded in the affirmative.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the City Attorney has not issued an opinion or\ndetermined what level of review would be required, to which the City Attorney\nresponded in the affirmative.\nIn response to the City Manager's inquiry, the City Clerk responded the second Council\nmeeting in July would be the last date to place a measure on the November ballot; in\norder to meet the Sunshine Ordinance requirement, initiative signature gathers would\nneed to have their item on the agenda twelve days before the meeting date; the\nRegistrar's office would have thirty working days to check signatures using the random\nsample counting method; the Council could place the matter on the ballot up until the\nfirst week in August.\nThe City Manager inquired whether the March 6th matter could be addressed and after\nthat decision there would be enough time for Council to place a measure on the\nNovember ballot, to which the City Clerk responded in the affirmative.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 11, "text": "In response to Acting Mayor Bonta's inquiry, the City Clerk stated additional costs would\ninclude approximately $3,000 for typesetting, printing, and translation and approximately\n$2,500 for signature checking.\nCouncilmember deHaan moved approval of Council taking the leadership to place the\nCharter amendment for the November election and have the City Attorney draft the\nnecessary documents to place the matter on the November ballot; stated problems\ncould have developed if a CEQA analysis for needed for Charter amendments place on\nthe ballot two years ago.\nCouncilmember Tam stated that she and then Councilmember Gilmore were part of the\nsubcommittee that involved Charter cleanup language; the City Attorney made a\ndetermination that the cleanup language was exempt from CEQA; SunCal was told that\nan exhaustive CEQA analysis would be needed if Council put a measure on the ballot to\namend Measure A but a CEQA analysis would not be needed if SunCal put the initiative\non the ballot through a signature gathering process.\nActing Mayor Bonta stated a City led effort is different than a citizen led effort;\nsignatures have been gathered for citizen led initiatives since 1992; inquired whether\nCouncilmember deHaan would support a citizen group effort to put a modification to\nMeasure A and then requested a Councilmember to place the matter on a ballot as a\nCity led initiative.\nCouncilmember deHaan responded Council placed Section 22.12 on the ballot, which is\nnot like Measure A; stated that he is moving forward with requesting Council to put the\ninititative on the ballot.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired whether Councilmember deHaan disagrees with the\nCity Attorney [regarding CEQA requirements], to which Councilmember deHaan\nresponded that tonight is the first time he has heard about CEQA requirements.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated the purpose of Council Referrals is to obtain more\ninformation.\n*\n(12-083) Councilmember Tam moved approval of hearing Vice Mayor Bonta's referral\npast 10:30 p.m.\nCouncilmember Johnson seconded the motion.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent\nMayor Gilmore - 1.]\n***\nCouncilmember Tam stated that on February 2nd, a citizen's group filed a notice of\nintention to circulate with the City Attorney; Council has until August to put the initiative\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 12, "text": "on the ballot; that she does not see a rush for Council to put the initiative on the ballot;\nbetween now and August, the City Attorney could advise Council on the CEQA and\nother Charter amendments to be considered; it is not a foregone conclusion that the\nland swap will happen; having the Mayor request options and alternatives to a land\nswap would suggest that a land swam would not happen; that she has not had a chance\nto review the exhaustive history of the initiative; that she is not ready to second\nCouncilmember deHaan's motion since Council has until August to place the initiative\non the ballot.\nCouncilmember deHaan stated having the community trust that the Council will do\nsomething by August could be a disaster if the signature gathering process were\nstopped.\nActing Mayor Bonta stated a democratic process has been in place for a long time;\nthere has not been an exception to having citizens gather signatures for a citizen led\ninitiative.\nThe motion failed due to lack of second.\n***\nActing Mayor Bonta called a recess at 10:33 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:43\np.m.\n*\n(12-084) Consider Initiating the Process for the City to Adopt a Prevailing Wage\nlesolution/Ordinance/Policy.\nActing Mayor Bonta gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Johnson inquired what the City currently has in place.\nThe City Attorney responded Charter cities have the ability to pass laws but are pre-\nempted by the federal and State government; any construction contract that is done with\nfederal funding needs to comply with the Davis-Bacon Act; construction that uses State\nmoney requires prevailing wages; Alameda has had the ability to determine whether or\nnot to pay prevailing wages if a construction project is fully funded with City funds;\ncircumstances have come up that question whether Charter cities should comply the\nsame as General Law cities; a Supreme Court decision should be forthcoming as to\nwhether or not prevailing wages are a matter of Statewide concern which would mean\nthat the City would have to pay prevailing wages consistent with State code; Council\ncould pass an ordinance or resolution to require that the City operate differently.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated that she understands that the City has a prevailing\nwage provision in place.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated staff found information from 2004 in which Council\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n12\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 13, "text": "chose to send a letter regarding the issue being one of statewide concern.\nIn response to Councilmember deHaan's inquiry, the City Attorney stated prevailing\nwage has to do with funding sources; staff has been unable to determine that Council\nadopted a prevailing wage ordinance; Alameda has wanted to retain the ability to have\nself-determination.\nThe Assistant City Manager stated a Council Referral was submitted by former\nCouncilmember Matarrese and then Councilmember Gilmore regarding project labor\nagreements.\nCouncilmember Tam stated it is important for the City to be clear on the issue since\nredevelopment is gone.\nUrged passage of a prevailing wage policy: Mike Croll, Operating Enghineers, Local 3;\nAndreas Cluver; Philip Deeff, Alameda resident; Juan Caldron, Alameda resident and\nPainters and Allied Trades; Andy Slivkin, Alameda resident and Carpenters Local Union\n713; Alan Brohard, Alameda resident; Gary Damele, Alameda resident; Ajit Rana; and\nDave Mello, Alameda resident.\nUrged a prevailing wage ordinance be adopted: former Councilmember Frank\nMatarrese, Alameda.\n*\n(12-085) Councilmember Johnson moved approval of continuing the meeting past 11:00\np.m.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion, which carried by the following voice\nvote: Ayes: Councilmembers deHaan, Johnson and Acting Mayor Bonta. Abstention:\nCouncilmember Tam - 1.\nThe City Manager stated that he is shocked that the [1996] resolution [Mr. Slivin read] is\nso clear and the matter is a problem at all; he is looking for Council direction on how to\nproceed; he would have no problem issuing an Administrative Instruction (AI) clarifying\nthe resolution in the next ten days; an alternative would be to draft an ordinance.\nActing Mayor Bonta stated that his goal is to get the strongest and fastest tool to\nenforce a prevailing wage provision; an Al could be issued initially and then an\nordinance could be adopted in perpetuity.\nCouncilmember Johnson stated Acting Vice Mayor Bonta's suggestion is a good way to\ngo; that she is concerned about how the language was subject to interpretation; there\nshould be a process to ensure that Council policies are not disregarded.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of having an Administrative Instruction and\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n13\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 14, "text": "ordinance.\nCouncilmember deHaan questioned whether another ordinance would be needed.\nActing Mayor Bonta stated the City does not have a prevailing wage ordinance.\nThe City Attorney stated ordinances are codified in the Municipal Code.\nCouncilmember deHaan seconded the motion.\nUnder discussion, Councilmember Johnson complying with resolutions is not optional.\nOn the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 4. [Absent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1.]\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(12-086) Consideration of Mayor's Nomination for Appointment to the Housing\nCommission.\nActing Mayor Bonta announced that Nan E. Joesten is Mayor Gilmore's nominee for\nappointment to the Housing Commission.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Bonta adjourned the meeting at 11:20\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n14\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2012-02-21", "page": 15, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 21, 2012--6:30 P.M.\nActing Mayor Bonta convened the meeting at 6:50 p.m.\nRoll Call -\nPresent:\nCouncilmembers deHaan, Johnson, Tam and Acting Mayor\nBonta - 4.\nAbsent:\nMayor Gilmore - 1.\nThe meeting was adjourned to closed session to consider:\n(12-064)\nConference with Labor Negotiators (54957.6); Agency Negotiators: Holly\nBrock-Cohn, Human Resources Director, and Masa Shiohira, Contract Labor\nNegotiator; Employee Organizations: International\nBrotherhood\nof\nElectrical\nWorkers; Anticipated Issues: All (Wages, Hours, Benefits, and Working Conditions).\nFollowing the closed session, the meeting was reconvened and Acting Mayor Bonta\nannounced that Council met in closed session to discuss the Contract with the\nInternational Brotherhood of Electrical Workers which was ratified by the Union\nmembership and will be considered by Council for approval at its March 7, 2012 special\nmeeting; the Union ratified Contract is posted to the website and available for public\nreview in advance of Council's public vote on March 7, 2012.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Acting Mayor Bonta adjourned the meeting at 6:56\np.m.\nRespectfully submitted,\nLara Weisiger\nCity Clerk\nThe agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Sunshine Ordinance.\nSpecial Meeting\nAlameda City Council\nFebruary 21, 2012", "path": "CityCouncil/2012-02-21.pdf"}