{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 1, "text": "MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- FEBRUARY 19, 2013- 7:00 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 7:14 p.m. Councilmember Daysog led the\nPledge of Allegiance.\nROLL CALL -\nPresent: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam\nand Mayor Gilmore - 5.\nAbsent:\nNone.\nAGENDA CHANGES\n(13-060) Mayor Gilmore announced that the rent increase concerns at 350 Central\nAvenue [paragraph no. 13-071 were resolved and the matter was withdrawn from the\nagenda.\nPROCLAMATIONS, SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY & ANNOUNCEMENTS\n(13-061) Mayor Gilmore read a statement regarding the season of non-violence word of\nthe day: inspiration.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-062) Former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda, urged the Council to\nconsider reinstating the Police Dare program.\nCONSENT CALENDAR\nMayor Gilmore announced that the resolution waiving Bay friendly landscaping\nrequirements [paragraph no. 13-066 was removed from the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of the remainder of the Consent Calendar.\nCouncilmember Chen 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(*13-063) Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting Held on January 14, 2013.\nApproved.\n(*13-064) Ratified bills in the amount of $3,677,222.56.\n(*13-065) Recommendation to Award a Consultant Contract in the Amount of $194,013\nto Anchor Engineering for Inspection Services Related to the Alameda Landing\nDevelopment and Allocate $38,805 for Contingencies. Accepted.\n(13-066) Adoption of Resolution Waiving Bay Friendly Landscaping Requirements in\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n1\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 2, "text": "Accordance with Section 30-59.3 of the Alameda Municipal Code. Not adopted; and\n(13-066 A) Recommendation to Award a Contract in the Amount of $248,620 to\nFieldstone Construction Company for Woodstock Field Improvements, Phase 2, No.\nP.W. 11-06-23; Appropriate $80,000 from the Citywide Development Fee Fund (Fund\n340.12); and Allocate $62,155 for Contingencies. Accepted.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated that she not does think the Council should waive the\nvery important environmental protection over the type of turf; other sports fields projects\nwould be forthcoming; questioned whether the Request for Proposal (RFP) specified\nthat the project needs to comply with the Bay Friendly Landscaping Ordinance and\nwhether other Bay Area communities comply with Bay Friendly principles; suggested\nartificial turf be considered, which has been successfully employed and is safer for\nathletes; stated that the Recreation and Parks Director talked to the contractor and\nfound a turf blend of grasses that does not require waiving the Bay Friendly Landscape\nOrdinance.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft moved approval of awarding the contract without adopting the\nresolution waiving the Bay Friendly Landscaping requirements.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the change is substantive and staff is agreeable.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated using a 90/10\nblend: 90% tall fescue, 10% blue grass has been successful.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the change addresses and fixes the soggy situation\nat Woodstock Park.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded drainage is the key issue being fixed\nthrough the renovation; the turf choice does not impact the water situation.\nIn response to Councilmember Tam's inquiry, the Recreation and Parks Director stated\n90% tall fescue is the threshold to comply with Bay Friendly landscape requirements;\nthe cost is approximately $5,000 cheaper for installation; consistency with other fields\nand buying seed overlay in bulk would make on-going maintenance costs the same.\nCouncilmember Tam seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\n(*13-067) Resolution No. 14774, \"Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Program\nSupplement and Master Agreements with CalTrans for the Safe Routes to School\nProject on Grand Street at Wood Middle School.\" Adopted.\n(*13-068) Resolution No. 14775, \"Amending the Alameda Management and Confidential\nEmployees Association (MCEA) Salary Schedule Establishing the Classification of\nCustomer Services Supervisor.\" Adopted.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n2\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 3, "text": "REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS\n(13-069) Mayor's State of the City Address.\nThe Mayor gave the State of the City Address.\n(13-070) Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a 5-Year\nAgreement with the Alameda Museum for Archival Services of City of Alameda\nRecords; and\n(13-070. A) Introduction of Ordinance Approving and Authorizing Conveyance by Grant\nDeed of Meyers House Museum and Garden Located at 2021 Alameda Avenue, to the\nAlameda Museum, a Non-Profit Corporation. Introduced.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired whether there would be a cost associated with the\ntransfer of the Meyers House, to which the Recreation and Parks Director responded in\nthe negative; stated there is no cost to either party.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired why the City could not just retain ownership and let the\nAlameda Museum have the facility.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded that, as a non-profit entity, the Alameda\nMuseum can do capital improvements more efficiently; stated the City has prevailing\nwage and other requirements, while the Alameda Museum can use volunteers and\ndifferent means.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the Alameda Museum has warehouse storage, to\nwhich the Recreation and Parks Director responded in the affirmative; stated 25% of the\nMuseum is storage and an additional 25% holds historical artifacts.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft noted the Meyers House transfer is an exciting example of\nanother public/private partnership following on the heels of the Animal Shelter example;\nthat she is very impressed by the volunteer spirit, which will save the City money;\n$3,000 in Athletic Trust Fund will go back into athletics.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired whether or not the City could review the issue of digitizing\nrecords and storage containment in a two-year rather than five-year agreement; the\nstatus of the Museum business plan as it pertained to weaning the Museum off City\nsubsidies; if the Meyers House would be exempt from securing building permits and\nother Historical Advisory Board requirements since the Museum is non-profit.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded that the Meyers House would need to\nadhere to the same requirements as any other resident making improvements and\nwould not be exempt from building permits or from requirements to bring improvements\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n3\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 4, "text": "before the Historical Advisory Board; stated Robbie Dileo, President of the Alameda\nMuseum could better address the issue of the business plan; requested clarification\nregarding Councilmember Tam's inquiry about digitizing records.\nCouncilmember Tam stated the City digitizing records could free up the physical records\nthe Museum is storing and reduce the term of the agreement for records storage to two\nyears instead of five years.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded the City would need to negotiate with the\nMuseum to move forward with a less than five-year agreement.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if the Museum will be self-sustaining after five years if the City\nhas room in-house and does not need as much storage space.\nThe Recreation and Parks Director responded five years gives the Museum enough\ntime to address the major capital needs, such as exterior paint, and ramp up programs,\nlike fundraising and revenue from rentals; the rental revenue should help close the gap\nto make the Museum self-sustaining.\nThe City Attorney stated the agreement provides for termination on 120-day notice.\nPrior to addressing Council questions, Ms. Dileo made brief comments urging Council to\napprove the agreement; further stated that she would have to bring any Council\nchanges before the Museum Board; the five year contract would move the Museum\ntoward become self-sustaining.\nMayor Gilmore inquired whether the Museum plans to do the major construction and\nmaintenance projects within five years, to which Ms. Dileo responded in the affirmative;\nstated the Meyers House cannot be sold when the Museum takes ownership; there are\nno labor restrictions; the construction projects would be done immediately in order to\nstart using the Meyers House as a revenue generator to help the Museum with rent\nwhich is the greatest expense.\nMayor Gilmore noted that in 2009, the City asked the Alameda Museum for a business\nplan to raise funds and wean off City subsidy; inquired how the business plan and\ntaking on the additional responsibility of the Meyers House interact.\nMs. Delio responded that she cannot promise the Museum would not still be interested\nin having government support in five years; Museum consultant, Kathleen Brown, stated\nthere is not a museum in the world that survives without some kind of government\nsupport; the Meyers House is a revenue generating opportunity which fits in the\nMuseum's long range plan to become less dependent on City support; the Museum is\nsolvent and would like to stay solvent; the Museum is one of few non-profit\norganizations still alive after 65 years; updated plan would be presented to the Council,\nif requested.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n4\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 5, "text": "Urged approval of the agreement: former Councilmember Doug deHaan, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the City has been paying $42,000 plus $3,000 from the\nRecreation Department; the objective is to bring the subsidy agreement to an end after\nfive more years.\nMayor Gilmore responded that she does not think ending the subsidy agreement is the\nobjective; stated the 2009 business plan goal was to lower the subsidy until the\nMuseum was weaned off of it; inquired how operating the Meyers House fits into the\noverall goal and if the Museum agrees with said goal.\nThe City Manager stated the agreement contains a 120-day termination clause; the five-\nyear period provides the Museum breathing space to address deferred maintenance at\nthe Meyers House; and not to be concerned with how rent will be paid; the City can\nexercise termination rights if interests are not being served.\nMayor Gilmore stated she would like the Museum to provide financial reports to the\nCouncil and community to track fundraising and see how money is being spent on\nrepairs.\nCity Manager stated staff would provide an annual report to the Council.\nCouncilmember Tam concurred with Mayor Gilmore; stated the Animal Shelter should\nbe used as a model; transparency and accessibility to the reports need to be ensured;\nthe City has to balance providing essential services.\nThe City Manager noted the Museum stewards important historical records for the City;\nthe City probably could not manage the historical records for less than $42,000; the City\nneeds a long term solution for archival records; the City has issues to deal with in\nsequence: the two year budget, objective performance measures, space planning; the\nCity has a tremendous amount of space that is being used inappropriately and\nunsuccessfully attempted to address some issues when Measure C failed; the best way\nto maintain the archival records is through the contract; if it does not work, the City can\nend the contract in 120 days.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the agreement would begin on July 1, 2013, to\nwhich the City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Chen stated if the City's objective is to encourage the Museum to be\nmore self-sufficient, the funding could be staggered; suggested giving the Museum\n$60,000 the first year, then $50,000, $40,000, $30,000, and $20,000; the Museum\nwould know they would be $10,000 less the next year and would be forced to think\nabout how money is being spent.\nThe City Manager stated the City would have to assign somebody to deal with the\nmaterial; the City does not use space effectively; the problem is not necessarily the cost\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n5\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 6, "text": "of the space, rather it is the cost of an employee; the funding is a way for the City to\nprovide money that the Museum can use for rent, which provides breathing room.\nCouncilmember Daysog concurred with the City Manager; framing the contract as the\nMuseum providing a service to the City is great; the City is getting a service and\nenlivening an asset; that he appreciates the 120 day out-clause and hopes the City\ncould move forward with the five-year time period.\nMayor Gilmore noted the five-year contract with the Museum amounts to over $200,000\nwhich requires Council approval and is not minor.\nThe City Attorney stated the Council could direct staff, as part of the motion, to come\nback on an annual basis with a financial report that would require cooperation of the\nMuseum; there is the 120 days termination clause if the Museum does not cooperate.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether exercising the 120 day termination clause\nwould save the City money, to which the City Manager responded in the negative.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired if the City would renew the agreement for another\nfive years and whether rent cost would increase by said time.\nThe City Manager responded in the negative; stated the City is deeding the Meyers\nHouse to the Museum, not leasing it; the 120 day termination clause applies to the\nagreement for archival services.\nMayor Gilmore inquired if the City would take back the archival material and no longer\npay the Museum to store such material upon 120 day termination of the agreement.\nThe City Manager responded in the affirmative.\nCouncilmember Daysog moved approval of the staff recommendation with the\nmodification proposed by the City Attorney [direct staff to provide an annual report in\ncooperation with the Museum and terminate if the Museum does not cooperate].\nThe City Attorney noted the motion is to approve the transfer via the ordinance, approve\nthe agreement and direct staff to come back to Council annually with financial\ninformation and a review of what the Museum has done as far as fundraising, Meyers\nHouse expenditures.\nMayor Gilmore stated the annual report should include the Museum's plans for the\nfollowing year.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired if the City Attorney's suggestion ties the reporting to the\n120 day termination clause.\nThe City Attorney responded in the affirmative; stated staff would present the report on\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n6\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 7, "text": "the fundraising and expenditures for that past year, and plans for the upcoming year; if\nthe Council is not satisfied, staff can be directed to terminate the agreement by giving\nthe 120 day notice.\nCouncilmember Daysog accepted the clarification to the motion.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft seconded the amended motion, which carried by unanimous\nvoice vote - 5.\n(13-071) Recommendation to Acknowledge Rent Increase Concerns at 350 Central\nAvenue and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply\nwith the Rent Review Advisory Committee Recommendations. Not heard.\n(13-072) Recommendation to Acknowledge Rent Increase Concerns at 1514 Benton\nStreet and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Letter Encouraging the Owner to Comply with\nthe Rent Review Advisory Committee Recommendations.\nThe Housing Programs Manager and Rent Review Advisory Committee (RRAC) Chair\ngave a brief presentation.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft inquired whether the letter being sent would be enforceable,\nto which Mayor Gilmore responded in the negative.\nEncouraged the City to do everything possible to embrace a fair approach for the\nrenters as well as the landlord and explore how to implement some type of rent cap for\nseniors and those with disabilities and limited incomes: Audrey Lord Hausman,\nAlameda.\nExplained the reason for rent increases: Michael Shepperd, Attorney for Property\nOwner (submitted information).\nStated the Rent Review Advisory committee should resolve the issue at hand: Sally\nHan, Alameda Association of Realtors.\nStated her parents and disabled sister had to leave their home due to rent increase and\nurged the Council uphold the Rent Review Advisory Committee's recommendation:\nAmparo Adlao, Alameda.\nExpressed support for the Rent Review Advisory Committee's decision; stated Alameda\nresidents deserve as much protection as Victorian houses: Emil Sobiro, Tenant\n(submitted information).\nSuggested Alameda consider Rent Control to protect the residents of Alameda: Geoff\nThorpe, Tenant,\nUrged large rent increases be prevented: Frank Adlao, Alameda.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n7\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 8, "text": "Stated ECHO Housing has received many rent increase calls over the past few months\nand the Council should consider rent control: Marjorie Rocha, ECHO Housing\n(submitted information).\nExpressed concern about the condition of the building; stated market rate could not be\ncharged for the apartments; urged the letter be sent: Debra Arbuckle, Alameda.\nStated more housing is needed in Alameda: William Smith, Renewed Hope.\nUrged a balanced approach, which focuses on affordable housing instead of landlords:\nKaren Bey, Alameda.\nUrged more affordable housing be built: Laura Thomas, Renewed Hope Housing\nAdvocates.\nExpressed concern over the excessive rent increases and urged approval of the staff\nrecommendation: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nVice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft stated the Vice Chair of the RRAC said the rent increases are\nthe highest increases he has ever seen; another RRAC member made the point that\nrent increases between 23% and 57% might as well be an eviction notice; that she is\ndisappointed by the Association of Realtors Representative advocating for using the\nprocess that is available; there is nothing reasonable about the rent increase\npercentages; that she is not advocating for rent control at this point, but that if there are\nmore similar cases, she would consider rent control more seriously.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated the discussion about rent control should start with\ngathering information; a letter sent by the Mayor has some teeth; encouraged sending a\nletter to the property owner.\nCouncilmember Tam moved approval of sending the letter.\nCouncilmember Chen seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote - 5.\nMayor Gilmore stated the situation is distressing; as abhorrent as the rent increases\nare, the landlord did not even show tenants respect by sitting face-to-face with the\ntenants to discuss anything; encouraged the Association of Realtors to collect data on\nrent control and to better oversee bad landlords.\n(13-073) Recommendation to Receive a Report on the Public Records Index.\nThe City Clerk gave a brief presentation.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired about the timeline, to which the Assistant City Manager\nresponded the program should be launched by late Spring; stated there are two\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n8\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 9, "text": "components of the program: 1) retention: keeping records safe, and 2) archiving: use\nand access to information instantly; the City Attorney's office has begun collecting all\nCity leases in a database.\nCouncilmember Chen stated at the last Open Government Commission meeting, the\nissue of translation services for non-English speaking languages was brought up;\ninquired whether translation services would be incorporated into the proposed program.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded in the negative; stated providing translation\nservices for documents is another policy level.\nCouncilmember Tam noted that both the City Manager and Assistant City Manager\ncame from the City of Oakland where there was an Equal Access Ordinance passed to\naddress a population that needed access to public documents; inquired how the\nparameters of said ordinance were set.\nThe Assistant City Manager responded the main component of the Equal Access\nOrdinance in Oakland was to provide for any community interaction positions to have\nstaff that could speak one of the four major languages spoken in the City; there was an\nEqual Access office where certain documents could be translated; with the technology\navailable today, translation should be easier; unfortunately, the Oakland program was\nnot implemented.\nCouncilmember Tam inquired how such a program would work best in the City of\nAlameda.\nThe City Manager responded the focus should be on documentation and front line\nservice; stated records have to be properly archived and categorized first; staff could\nevaluate having an on call translator.\nThe City Clerk noted that $20,000 for translation services at public meetings is\naddressed in the City's Sunshine Ordinance.\nCouncilmember Tam noted that she receives a lot of inquiries from Chinese-speaking\nresidents regarding building matters and rent control issues and has to refer the\ninquiries to employees with better Cantonese or Mandarin ability; stated there is talent\nin the City and provisions in Sunshine Ordinance that we should have translation ability.\nThe Assistant City Manager noted that there is a list of identified City employees that\nspeak different language; discerning between basic general translation and legal\ntranslation is important.\nThe City Attorney concurred with the Assistant City Manager; stated caution must be\nexercised when translating documents.\nCommended staff for advocating the Sunshine Ordinance; stated the Open Government\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n9\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 10, "text": "Commission (OGC) meeting minutes recognize there are costs associated with\ntransparency: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nClarified that he was only referring to Public Records Index at the OGC meeting: Jeff\nCambra, Alameda.\nCITY MANAGER COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-074) The City Manager encouraged residents to participate in the Budget Challenge\nposted on the City's website.\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS, NON-AGENDA\n(13-075) Jon Spangler, Alameda, encouraged there be no animosity between the City\nand the East Bay Regional Park District; and suggested the scope of the Alameda Point\nEnvironmental Impact Report be as broad as possible.\nCOUNCIL REFERRALS\n(13-076) Consider Providing Direction to Staff regarding a Draft Resolution Re-Affirming\nSupport for the Creation of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Chen stated supporting and preserving wildlife communities is\nimportant; the Open Space designation in the Reuse Plan is equally important; the\nresolution he is presenting is straightforward; staff can be given an opportunity to\nevaluate or change the resolution, or come back with staff report.\nMayor Gilmore inquired about the impact of passing the resolution, since the property is\nstill owned by the Federal Government.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded passing the resolution would\nnot have impact the Federal Government; stated the Federal Government is not subject\nto local land use; if the Council passes a resolution directing staff to include a zoning\ndesignation for Open Space or refuge, the Federal Government would not be affected\nby that action.\nThe City Manager noted the resolution is just a statement of the position of the City.\nCouncilmember Tam noted there is a statement in the General Plan supporting the\nWildlife Refuge.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point submitted a copy and read an excerpt of\nthe General Plan statement related to the Wildlife Refuge.\nCouncilmember Daysog inquired if the U.S. Fish & Wildlife (USF&W) is still involved, to\nwhich the Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated\nunder Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the Navy or any other federal entity\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n10\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 11, "text": "has to consult with USF&W; a biological opinion has been issued related to the\nVeterans Administration (VA) project and the transfer of the property from the Navy to\nthe VA.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated there is anxiety since the City is now working with the\nVA instead of USF&W.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point stated a recent zoning map labeled the\nland as a \"Federal Facility\" which might have caused he anxiety; stated the designation\nwas not intended to minimize support for the property as open space/wildlife, and is\nmerely a way to broadly describe the property to allow flexibility; the VA and Navy have\nobjected to using the term \"refuge\" because it creates confusion and implies the\nproperty is a formal refuge which the USF&W would receive, when in fact it is being\ntransferred to the VA.\nCouncilmember Chen inquired if the VA is aware the refuge is incorporated into the\n1996 Reuse Plan and General Plan.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point responded in the affirmative; stated the\nBiological Opinion ensures the land is conserved in perpetuity to protect the Least Tern.\nThe City Manager stated staff recommends that Council direct staff to provide a written\nreport.\nThe Chief Operating Officer - Alameda Point noted items related to the VA project are\non the March 5th agenda.\nUrged establishing a National Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point: Richard Bangert,\nAlameda.\n*\nCouncilmember Tam left the dais at 10:30 p.m. and returned at 10:32 p.m.\nStated the goal of the Club is to explore and protect natural and open spaces; the Club\nsupports resolution: Irene Dieter, San Francisco Bay Chapter of the Sierra Club.\nExpressed support of protecting Alameda's Least Terns and the open space\ndesignation: Lenora Feeney, Golden Gate Audubon Society.\nUrged to hold the Federal Government accountable to protect the wildlife; that he\nsupports the resolution: Jon Spangler, Alameda.\nExpressed support of the resolution and urged adoption: Patricia Gannon, Sierra Club\nand Friends of the Alameda Wildlife Refuge member.\nRegular Meeting\nAlameda City Council\n11\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 12, "text": "Encouraged zoning the land open space area/nature conservation, urged adoption of\nthe resolution: Bill Smith, Sierra Club and Golden Gate Audubon Society.\nStated that she would like to hear discussion about the VA's proposed uses for the\nproperty, which does not seem to include a wildlife refuge: Carol Gottstein, Alameda.\nCouncilmember Chen clarified that the USF&W, the VA, and the Navy are all in unison\nto protect endangered species; that he would like to pass the resolution to re-emphasize\nthe City's position that the land is reserved for a wildlife refuge.\nCouncilmember Chen adoption of the resolution, stated staff could be directed to revise\nthe resolution language and bring it back.\nCouncilmember Daysog stated that he would like staff's input; stated the ultimate desire\nis to have open space and live up to the commitments of the 1996 Reuse Plan; the City\nmight have to find other ways to reach goals of open space with other zoning; he would\nlike staff to come back to the Council with recommendations.\nCouncilmember Chen amended his motion to direct staff to re-draft the resolution re-\naffirming the creation of a Wildlife Refuge at Alameda Point.\nCouncilmember Daysog seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote -\n5.\nCOUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS\n(13-077) Consideration of Mayor's Nominations for Appointment to Commission on\nDisability Issues.\nMayor Gilmore nominated La Donna Franco and Judith Frug\u00e9 for appointment to the\nCommission on Disability Issues.\n(13-078) Mayor Gilmore announced that she attended the Mayor's conference and\nheard presentations on a new model of health care clinics schools and gave a\npresentation on East Bay Regional Parks District's lawsuit against the City.\nADJOURNMENT\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 10:54 p.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\n12\nFebruary 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}
{"body": "CityCouncil", "date": "2013-02-19", "page": 13, "text": "MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING\nTUESDAY- - - FEBRUARY 19, 2013- -600 P.M.\nMayor Gilmore convened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.\nRoll Call - Present:\nCouncilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and\nMayor Gilmore - 5.\n[Note: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft arrived at 6:05 p.m.]\nAbsent:\nNone.\nThe meeting was adjourned to Closed Session to consider:\n(13-059) Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (54956.9); Name of Case:\nEast Bay Regional Park District, a Special District, and Angela Fawcett V. City of\nAlameda and City of Alameda City Council; Alameda County Superior Court Case No.\nRG12655685\nFollowing the Closed Session the meeting was reconvened and Mayor Gilmore\nannounced that the Council gave direction to staff.\nAdjournment\nThere being no further business, Mayor Gilmore adjourned the meeting at 7:08 p.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 19, 2013", "path": "CityCouncil/2013-02-19.pdf"}